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 xiaolai/cc-suite --skill claude-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xiaolai/cc-suiteWrote 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/xiaolai/cc-suite/claude-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xiaolai/cc-suite/claude-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xiaolai/cc-suite/claude-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/xiaolai/cc-suite/claude-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xiaolai/cc-suite/claude-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00048 | $0.00791 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00396 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
claude-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 10d 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claude Review
Delegate a code review to Claude Code and get back structured findings.
When to Use
- After writing or modifying code and wanting a second opinion
- When asked to "get Claude to review this"
- When a review requires deep context that would benefit from a fresh Claude session
Call Pattern
Step 1: Start a review
Call claude_code with a structured review prompt:
mcp__claude-code__claude_code:
prompt: |
Review the following code for correctness, security, and quality.
SCOPE: {files or description of what to review}
Evaluate:
1. Correctness — logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one, race conditions
2. Security — injection, auth bypass, data exposure, input validation
3. Quality — readability, maintainability, test coverage, naming
4. Architecture — coupling, abstraction leaks, layer violations
For each finding report:
- File:line
- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Category
- Issue description
- Suggested fix
PROVENANCE NOTE: The code being reviewed was written by OpenAI Codex. Evaluate
with full rigor — do not defer to it. Apply independent judgment on every finding.
cwd: {project working directory}
effort: high
permissionMode: plan
Save the returned session_id as {review_session_id}.
Step 2: Follow up (optional)
To ask about specific findings or request deeper analysis on a section:
mcp__claude-code__claude_code_reply:
session_id: {review_session_id}
prompt: "Expand on finding #3 — what's the exact attack vector and what's the minimal fix?"
Output Format
Display the review findings in a structured table:
| File:Line | Severity | Category | Issue | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | Critical | Security | ... | ... |
Follow with a summary count by severity and a recommended action (fix now vs fix later vs acceptable risk).
Notes
permissionMode: planprevents Claude from modifying files — review is read-only- Set
effort: highfor thorough analysis; usemediumfor quick spot-checks - Pass
cwdto anchor relative file paths in findings - If the project has a test suite, mention it in the prompt so Claude can assess coverage gaps
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 98 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A f75df031ef63
claude-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository xiaolai/cc-suite (44 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed ISC. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 791 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…