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 yash-gadodia/claude-init --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yash-gadodia/claude-initWrote 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/yash-gadodia/claude-init/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/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/yash-gadodia/claude-init/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yash-gadodia/claude-init/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00994 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00398 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review: Two-Stage Code Review
Review all changes in two passes: first check if the spec is met, then check code quality.
When This Triggers
Automatically after implementing any change. Also useful before committing or creating PRs.
Process
Stage 1: Spec Compliance
Does the code match what was requested?
Change summary (loaded fresh when this skill triggers):
!git diff --stat HEAD 2>/dev/null || git diff --stat
Recent commits on this branch:
!git log --oneline -5 2>/dev/null || echo "(no git history)"
Read the full diff for any file that shows up above before judging it — git diff HEAD -- <file> for unstaged + staged, git diff <base>...HEAD -- <file> when reviewing a PR. Never review from memory.
For each requirement/acceptance criterion from the plan or request:
- Is there code implementing it?
- Is there a test verifying it?
- Does the implementation match the spec (not over-build, not under-build)?
Missing requirement? Flag it. Don't proceed to Stage 2 until spec is met. Extra code not in spec? Flag it. YAGNI — remove unless there's a clear reason.
Stage 2: Code Quality
For each changed file, check:
Correctness:
- Does the logic do what it claims?
- Edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Off-by-one errors?
- Async operations handle errors and race conditions?
Security:
- User input validated and sanitized?
- No SQL injection, XSS, or command injection?
- No credentials or secrets in code?
- Auth checks present where needed?
Conventions:
- Matches existing patterns in the codebase?
- Uses existing utilities instead of reinventing?
- Follows naming conventions?
Tests:
- New functionality has tests that followed TDD (test was written first)?
- Tests assert exact expected values, not ranges?
- Test names describe behavior?
Severity taxonomy
Label every finding — not all feedback is mandatory, and treating nits as blockers erodes trust in the review:
| Severity | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Bug, security hole, data loss, spec violation | Blocks approval |
| Important | Wrong pattern, missing test, latent bug | Should fix before merge |
| Nit | Style, naming, minor cleanup | Author may ignore |
| FYI | Informational, no change requested | No action |
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 First seen · 123 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 75077446f4cc
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository yash-gadodia/claude-init (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 994 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
kn-review
Use when reviewing implemented code before committing — multi-perspective review with severity-based findings.
kn-doc
Use when working with Knowns documentation - viewing, searching, creating, or updating docs.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.