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 zacharygcook/agent-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zacharygcook/agent-skillsWrote 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/zacharygcook/agent-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zacharygcook/agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zacharygcook/agent-skills/code-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/zacharygcook/agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zacharygcook/agent-skills/code-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 | $0.00056 | $0.00605 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 8d 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Find real correctness, security, reliability, product, performance, and maintainability risks. Do not implement fixes unless the user also asks for them.
Review Posture
- Assume bugs may exist, but prove claims from code, tests, docs, or deterministic output.
- Review system outcomes and repository invariants, not syntax alone.
- Separate definite findings from open questions and speculative risks.
- Prefer one root-cause finding over several overlapping symptoms.
- Do not pad the report when no issue exists.
Priorities
- P0: catastrophic security, data loss, outage, or broken core workflow; must not ship.
- P1: serious definite correctness, privacy, auth, reliability, migration, or integration bug.
- P2: normal actionable bug, edge case, test gap, performance risk, API/data-model issue, or maintainability problem.
- P3: low-risk inconsistency or polish worth addressing.
Use the lowest priority that honestly matches both impact and confidence.
Workflow
- Read repository instructions and docs relevant to the changed domain.
- Establish the exact target and intent from status, commits, PR text, issues, and tests.
- Read changed files plus nearby code that owns contracts and invariants.
- Run focused repository-native checks without mutating code.
- Inspect auth, data handling, migrations, concurrency, external costs, dependencies, queries, UI states, and operability as applicable.
- Review manually after tool output; scanners are evidence, not conclusions.
- Return findings first with tight file/line references and concrete remediation.
Never run destructive resets, live provider calls, production migrations, or write-mode formatting during a read-only review without explicit authorization.
Deterministic Evidence
Choose proportional checks: formatting check mode, lint, typecheck, focused tests, contract/schema tests, build/bundle analysis, dependency inspection, and existing complexity tooling. Report exact commands and outcomes.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 54 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 1672c58a98da
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zacharygcook/agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 605 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
package-evaluator
Evaluates Claude Code package quality across 6 dimensions for all 7 package types, producing scored audit reports. Triggers on: "evaluate package", "audit agent quality", "score this hook", "package audit", "skill quality check". NOT for LLM prompts, use prompt-lab.
code-refiner
Deep code simplification and refactoring preserving behavior across Python, Go, TypeScript, Rust. Targets complexity, anti-patterns, readability debt. Triggers on: "simplify this code", "refactor for clarity", "reduce complexity", "make this more readable", "tech debt cleanup", "too much nesting".
package-optimizer
Evaluate one existing package or bounded package family from recorded evaluator evidence and a capability profile, then propose retain, simplify, strengthen, retire, or inconclusive without editing. Use when optimizing a skill, agent, hook, rule, command, utility, or preset; evaluating whether package detail is…
plan-review
Pre-implementation plan audit stress-testing scope, assumptions, risks, and failure modes before code is written. Triggers on: "review this plan", "is this plan solid", "what am I missing", "challenge my assumptions", "stress-test this", "/plan-review".
pre-landing-review
Gate-oriented safety audit for code changes before landing, using a checklist with two-pass severity triage. Triggers on: "is this safe to land", "pre-landing review", "safety check before merge", "gate check", "/pre-landing-review". NOT for diff review, use pr-review.