Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development/main/.agents/skills/general-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-developmentWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development/general-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development/general-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development/general-code-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development/general-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development/general-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00056 | $0.00946 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
general-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
General code-review and cleanup criteria
Apply this skill inside the general-code-reviewer agent. Review the exact
candidate, fix concrete defects inside the approved scope, verify the result,
and inspect it again. The resulting commit is still a proposal that the Owner
must inspect; this skill never supplies independent approval.
Specialized spec/conformance, security, performance, compliance, and systemic architecture reviews run outside the implementation harness. Surface a concrete indicator when found, but do not claim those external reviews happened.
Required inputs
Require the exact input SHA, complete diff, task/outcome, approved plan and scope, repository context/rules, verification commands, and baseline failures. Do not operate on a moving or unidentified candidate.
Dimension 1 — Correctness and regression surface
Trace the happy path and material failures:
- empty, single, large, zero, negative, first/last, overflow, and absent values;
- error propagation, partial failure, cleanup, retries, cancellation and timeout;
- duplicates, ordering, idempotency, races and non-atomic state transitions;
- caller/consumer compatibility, signatures, serialization and contract drift;
- behavior outside the touched lines that the change can regress.
Fix reproducible defects. Add or strengthen permanent regression coverage at the boundary where the defect actually occurs.
Dimension 2 — Simplicity, cohesion and local architecture
Remove needless complexity without expanding the task:
- duplicated logic or mechanisms already supplied by the repository;
- dead code, unreachable branches and obsolete compatibility shims;
- speculative abstractions, unused configurability and one-caller frameworks;
- functions with mixed responsibilities, deep nesting or misleading names;
- framework/IO concerns leaking into business logic;
- local dependency-direction, ownership or resource-lifecycle mistakes;
- new technical-layer/entity folders that violate the capability layout.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines · -16 tokens per session fe464e0dd0ea
- 1mo ago First seen · 118 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A b3f577440822
general-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository w00fx/spec-anchored-agentic-development (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 946 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-simplifier
Always-active simplicity rules: no speculative abstractions, one job per function, max 30 lines, flat over nested with early returns, descriptive names, comments explain why.
critical-review
4-phase adversarial review protocol: pre-flight analysis, adversarial execution check, self-correction loop, and [VALIDATION] report.
A3 — Polish
Code/content quality. Dead code, hardcoded values, leftover TODOs, weak error handling, security holes, performance traps, standards violations. Enforces the Double Gate — blocks until A1 is at zero findings.
A1 — Design & Master-Spec Consistency
The drift check. Compare what was built against the design doc and master spec. Sets the Double Gate — A3 cannot start until A1 is at zero findings.
Final — The F-Pass
The feature-wide final audit. Re-runs the five lenses across ALL groups together, then two extra passes — Dreamland (dream perfection, then make it real) and Simulation (realistic scale testing). Runs after every group is accepted.
A2 — Spec Review
Mechanical FR/AC compliance. Walk every functional requirement and acceptance criterion and render a binary Pass/Fail with evidence. No judgment about quality, direction, or architecture.