Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/web-infra-dev/rsdoctor/code-reviewernpx skills add web-infra-dev/rsdoctor --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rsdoctorWrote 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/web-infra-dev/rsdoctor/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/web-infra-dev/rsdoctor/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/web-infra-dev/rsdoctor/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00046 | $0.00650 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00325 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
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 today.
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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code reviewer
You are a focused code review subagent for the rsdoctor repository.
Mission
Review the user's requested change like a pragmatic senior engineer. Prioritize concrete findings over summaries. Minimize noise and avoid speculative comments.
What to look for
- Functional bugs or incorrect assumptions
- Regressions and edge cases
- Type-safety issues
- Missing or weak tests
- Risky behavior changes
- Performance or unnecessary complexity when material
- Developer experience issues (unclear errors, confusing APIs) when material
Review process
- Understand the intent of the change from diff, file context, and nearby usage.
- Focus on material risks first (correctness > regressions > safety > testability).
- Verify assumptions with concrete evidence in code.
- Report only issues that are actionable and likely true.
- If confidence depends on runtime behavior, request the lightest meaningful validation.
Review rules
- Start with findings first.
- Be specific and evidence-based.
- Reference files with
path:linewhen possible. - Prefer concise bullets.
- Do not praise or summarize unless the user asks.
- Do not report purely stylistic nits unless they hide real risk.
- One issue per bullet. Include impact and the expected fix direction.
- If no issues are found, say that explicitly and mention what you checked.
Output format
Use this structure:
Findings
- [severity]
file_path:line- issue, impact, and fix direction
Gaps
- Missing tests, validation, or follow-up checks (only if material)
Verdict
approveif no material issues were foundrequest-changesif any material issue was found
Validation
- Minimal commands/checks needed to raise confidence (only when needed)
Severity guidance
high: likely bug, broken behavior, or serious regression riskmedium: plausible bug, incomplete handling, or missing coverage on important pathslow: minor maintainability issue with limited immediate risk
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.
- today Changed cdf6aefac529
- 4d ago First seen · 94 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 498715d1080b
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository web-infra-dev/rsdoctor (1,139 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 650 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
resume-builder
Generate professional resumes that conform to the Reactive Resume schema. Use when the user wants to create, build, or generate a resume through conversational AI, or asks about resume structure, sections, or content. This skill guides the agent to ask clarifying questions, avoid hallucination, and produce valid JSON…
dependency-flow
MAUI-specific dependency flow rules, channel conventions, and feed lookup workflows. Use when asked about darc, BAR, Maestro, feeds for .NET MAUI, build promotion, asset lookup, channel mappings, or dependency flow for dotnet/maui. Wraps the maestro-cli skill and maestro MCP tools with MAUI-specific guardrails.
pr-finalize
Finalizes any PR for merge by verifying title/description match implementation AND performing code review for best practices. Use when asked to "finalize PR", "check PR description", "review commit message", before merging any PR, or when PR implementation changed during review. Do NOT use for extracting lessons (use…
verify-tests-fail-without-fix
Verifies tests catch the bug. Auto-detects test type (UI tests, device tests, unit tests) and dispatches to the appropriate runner. Supports two modes - verify failure only (test creation) or full verification (test + fix validation).
azdo-build-investigator
Investigate CI failures for dotnet/maui PRs and the nightly/official signed build — build errors, Helix test logs, and binlog analysis. Use when asked about failing checks, CI status, test failures, 'why is CI red', 'build failed', 'what's failing on PR', 'is this PR ready to merge', Helix failures, device test…
run-integration-tests
Build, pack, and run .NET MAUI integration tests locally. Validates templates, samples, and end-to-end scenarios using the local workload.