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 skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-codeWrote 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/ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code/phase-8-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code/phase-8-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code/phase-8-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/ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code/phase-8-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code/phase-8-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
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 →
- high Tool Misuse · line 505 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
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 | $0.00077 | $0.03271 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01636 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00654 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00327 |
Grade A, and why
phase-8-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 6d 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 — 536 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 8: Architecture/Convention Review
Overall codebase quality verification
Purpose
Review the entire codebase before deployment. Identify architecture consistency, convention compliance, and potential issues.
What to Do in This Phase
- Architecture Review: Review structural consistency
- Convention Review: Verify rule compliance
- Code Quality Review: Duplication, complexity, potential bugs
- Refactoring: Fix discovered issues
Deliverables
docs/03-analysis/
├── architecture-review.md # Architecture review
├── convention-review.md # Convention review
└── refactoring-plan.md # Refactoring plan
PDCA Application
- Plan: Define review scope/criteria
- Design: Design checklist
- Do: Execute code review
- Check: Analyze issues
- Act: Refactor and proceed to Phase 9
Level-wise Application
| Level | Application Method |
|---|---|
| Starter | Can be skipped (simple projects) |
| Dynamic | Required |
| Enterprise | Required + security review |
Full Phase Verification Matrix
Cross-Phase Consistency Verification
Phase 8 verifies that all Phase outputs and rules are consistently applied.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Cross-Phase Dependency Flow │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Phase 1 (Schema/Terminology) │
│ ↓ Glossary, entity definitions │
│ Phase 2 (Coding Convention) │
│ ↓ Naming rules, environment variable conventions │
│ Phase 3 (Mockup) │
│ ↓ Component structure, Props design │
│ Phase 4 (API) │
│ ↓ RESTful principles, response format, error codes │
│ Phase 5 (Design System) │
│ ↓ Design tokens, component variants │
│ Phase 6 (UI Implementation) │
│ ↓ API client, type sharing, error handling │
│ Phase 7 (SEO/Security) │
│ ↓ Security rules, metadata │
│ Phase 8 (Review) ← Current stage: Full verification │
│ ↓ │
│ Phase 9 (Deployment) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 536 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 8ab5fc82c671
phase-8-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code (594 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 3,271 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-auditor
Independent pre-merge review of a git diff, PR, or named files. Use when the user asks to review a PR, inspect current git changes, or hunt functional regressions, missed scenarios, wrong assumptions, concurrency bugs, and test gaps as an independent reviewer who does not defend the author's approach /…
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.
codex-agent
Use when you want a second-opinion review via Codex CLI, cross-verification after another agent implements changes, debugging help, or alternative implementation proposals. Requires Codex CLI to be installed and authenticated.