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 zachjxyz/jvn --skill review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zachjxyz/jvnWrote 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/zachjxyz/jvn/review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zachjxyz/jvn/review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zachjxyz/jvn/review-checklist/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/zachjxyz/jvn/review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zachjxyz/jvn/review-checklist.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00382 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
review-checklist 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 11d 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
Code Review Checklist
Use this checklist when reviewing implementation changes.
Correctness
- Logic matches specification requirements
- Edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)
- Error paths return appropriate responses
- No off-by-one errors in loops/pagination
Type Safety
- No
anytypes - No
@ts-ignoreor@ts-expect-error - Drizzle query types properly inferred (not manually typed)
- API response types match contract
Security
- No secrets or credentials in source code
- Auth checks on all protected routes and server actions
- User input validated at system boundaries
- SQL injection prevented (Drizzle parameterized queries)
- XSS prevented (no
dangerouslySetInnerHTMLwithout sanitization)
Performance
- No N+1 query patterns
- Indexes on columns used in WHERE, JOIN, ORDER BY
- Independent data fetches use
Promise.all() - Heavy components use
next/dynamicfor code splitting - Suspense boundaries wrap async server components
Testing
- Tests written BEFORE implementation (TDD)
- Happy path covered
- Error cases covered
- Edge cases covered
- Integration tests for API routes
Maintainability
- Files under ~200 lines (split if larger)
- Descriptive variable and function names
- Early returns for guard clauses
- No dead code (unused imports, variables, functions)
- No commented-out code
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 50 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A d8d480d598ae
review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository zachjxyz/jvn (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 382 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
readme-doctor
Audit a GitHub repo's README against best-practice patterns and produce a prioritized punch list of fixes. Runs a structured review covering hero presence, install-to-first-success length, "what is this in one sentence" clarity, audience-jargon match, scannability, and drift signals (stale versions, dead links, badge…
pwp-code-review
Systematic code review protocol — review code with rigor and specificity. Use this skill whenever the user asks you to review code, check a PR, audit a file, look over changes, or give feedback on implementation quality. Also use when they say 'review this', 'is this code good', 'check my work', 'what do you think of…
pwp-refactor
Safe refactoring protocol — restructure code without breaking behavior. Use this skill whenever the user asks to refactor, restructure, reorganize, clean up, simplify, or decompose code. Also use when they say 'this file is too big', 'too much duplication', 'split this up', 'make this cleaner', 'reduce complexity', or…
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.
guidance
Authoritative guidance for building Claude Code skills, agents, and plugins, vendored into this repository. Use when you need the rules or best practices for a skill, agent, hook, or plugin — designing, reviewing, hardening, or checking one against the guidance. Does not run an interview to build a new skill or agent…