Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to yu-iskw/llmops-demo-ts. 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/yu-iskw/llmops-demo-ts/main/.claude/skills/review-code/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yu-iskw/llmops-demo-tsWrote 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/yu-iskw/llmops-demo-ts/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yu-iskw/llmops-demo-ts/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yu-iskw/llmops-demo-ts/review-code.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 5.1 | $0.00029 | $0.00290 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00145 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Review Code
Review the following code:
$ARGUMENTS
Review Scope
- Run
git diffto identify changes (or examine specified files) - Review each changed file against the checklist below
- Report findings organized by severity
Review Checklist
Correctness
- Logic handles all cases including edge cases
- Async operations properly awaited
- Error handling is appropriate
Security
- No hardcoded secrets
- Input validation at boundaries
- No injection vectors (command, XSS, prompt)
TypeScript Quality
- Proper type annotations
- No unnecessary
anytypes - Interfaces defined for data structures
Performance
- No unnecessary re-renders (Vue components)
- Efficient algorithms and data structures
- Streaming used for AI responses
Architecture
- Follows project patterns (BaseAgent, StateGraph, tsoa)
- Correct package boundaries
- No circular dependencies
Output
Provide findings as:
- 🔴 Critical: Must fix before merge
- 🟡 Warning: Should fix
- 🔵 Suggestion: Consider improving
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 60 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 7b4a9e419941
review-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository yu-iskw/llmops-demo-ts (6 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 290 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
karpathy
Coding principles for simplicity, clarity, and surgical precision. Use when you want Claude to think before coding, keep solutions minimal, make surgical changes, and define verifiable success criteria. Triggers on: karpathy mode, think before coding, simplicity first, surgical changes.
code-reviewer
Reviews Java code for best practices, security issues, and Spring Framework conventions. Use when user asks to review, analyze, or audit code.
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
bootstrap-repo-analysis
First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the…
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
discount-review
Inspect the discount policy fixture with a repeatable review checklist and helper script.