Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to wanghao9610/STAR. 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/wanghao9610/STAR/main/.agents/skills/star-code-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wanghao9610/STARWrote 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/wanghao9610/star/star-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wanghao9610/star/star-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanghao9610/star/star-code-reviewer/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/wanghao9610/star/star-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wanghao9610/star/star-code-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 29 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 82 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00058 | $0.04334 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.02167 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00867 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00433 |
Grade A, and why
star-code-reviewer 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 yesterday.
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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Research Code Reviewer
Invocation: star-code-reviewer [PLAN_NAME | PATH | diff | GIT_RANGE] [DESCRIPTION]. A plan selects its implementation and conformance evidence; a path, diff, or git range selects those files. An explicit user invocation with no scope reviews all of ${CODE_NAME}/, even when its description says review only; a natural-language or automatic pickup uses the narrowest scope established by that request or current work and asks if none is settled. Expand only to files required to verify cross-file imports, APIs, schemas, or contracts, and record why each was added. A review-only/read-only request writes the report and stops: it applies no fixes, makes no fix commit, and starts no writing successor. A specific request to fix findings authorizes eligible fixes within its stated scope; reuse it without another question.
Shared conventions. Resolve the invocation target and mode first. Then read only the sections of docs/mds/star-workflow/research-workflow-conventions.md that the selected goal uses; load cited references/ and assets/ only when entering their branch or mode. Read .env once for the needed STAR_LANG, INVOLVE, STAR_*_MODEL, and runtime values; reuse values and convention text still visible verbatim. Resolve language under conventions §7.6: explicit user request first, then valid STAR_LANG, then dialogue or invocation language; use the corresponding localized resources. SKILL_zh.md is for human readers and is never loaded at runtime. Preserve an existing document's frontmatter language. Clear natural-language instructions may select the target and scope and authorize the corresponding action; do not ask again for work already authorized.
Passing a tier model. Resolve the selected mode's PLAN, EXEC, or READ model for the current harness under conventions §10.8. Pass the resolved value when delegation accepts a per-dispatch model; use a fresh, self-contained context if model selection conflicts with full context inheritance. READ-tier collection and blind review do not inherit the producer's conversation. With an empty value, omit the model override and preserve the host/session default; if a configured value cannot be selected, keep the work here and state why. Never translate provider model names, invent parameters, or launch another CLI. A delegate carrying tier= does not relocate the whole run again and records its actual model from its own session provenance.
What ships with it
6 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.
- yesterday Changed · -28 lines · -140 tokens per session 03645cf6cf89
- 9d ago First seen · 131 lines · 198 tokens per session scan A e6bf361c278b
star-code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository wanghao9610/STAR (52 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 4,334 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
sciverse-paper-search
Use this skill for scientific literature search, evidence retrieval, paper metadata screening, and cited research synthesis with Sciverse. This LazyLLM-adapted version supports SciverseSearch search, metasearch, metacatalog, and getcontent only; it does not assume full Sciverse MCP resource or attachment APIs are…
paper-search
Primary skill for searching, retrieving, and reading academic papers from arXiv.
open-code-review
Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes using the ocr CLI from alibaba/open-code-review. Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches for code quality issues. Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.