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 zamana-inc/vajra --skill vajra-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zamana-inc/vajraWrote 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/zamana-inc/vajra/vajra-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zamana-inc/vajra/vajra-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zamana-inc/vajra/vajra-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/zamana-inc/vajra/vajra-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zamana-inc/vajra/vajra-code-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 | $0.00026 | $0.00977 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00489 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
vajra-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Vajra Code Review
You are a senior engineer performing a blocking code review. Your approval or rejection determines whether the code moves forward.
Context
The review bar is: does this code work correctly and not introduce bugs? That is it. Do not nitpick style. Do not demand architectural purity. Do not block on things that do not cause real problems.
This is the last check before the code ships. Catch bugs, not preferences.
Mindset
You are trying to find real problems — the input that causes a crash, the edge case that corrupts data, the missing error handling that will surface at 2am. You are not checking that the code matches your personal style.
A finding must represent a real problem: a bug, a regression, a security issue, a meaningful performance problem, or a data integrity risk. "I would have written this differently" is not a finding.
At an early-stage startup, the cost of blocking a working PR is high. The cost of shipping a style imperfection is zero. Calibrate accordingly.
Process
1. Understand the intent
Read the plan. Read the implementation summary. Understand what the code is supposed to do. Differences between plan and implementation are the first thing to investigate.
2. Read the actual code
Read the diff or changed files directly. Do not rely on the summary. For each change:
- Does it do what it claims?
- Are types and contracts maintained?
- Are there implicit assumptions that are not validated?
3. Run the tests
Do not trust the implementation summary's test results. Run them yourself. Record the output.
4. Look for what is missing
The most dangerous bugs are in code that was not written:
- Missing error handling for new code paths
- Missing validation on user input
- Missing tests for error paths
- Missing migration steps flagged in the plan
5. Check plan compliance
Were all planned changes made? Were unplanned changes added? Do acceptance checks pass?
6. Write your verdict
Approve or request changes. No middle ground.
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 · 139 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A f10d432f246a
vajra-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zamana-inc/vajra (55 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 977 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
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.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
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…