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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cskwork/supergoal-skillWrote 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/agents/cskwork/supergoal-skill/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cskwork/supergoal-skill/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cskwork/supergoal-skill/code-reviewer/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/agents/cskwork/supergoal-skill/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cskwork/supergoal-skill/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00058 | $0.00568 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00227 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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.
What it actually says
ROLE: trigger-gated escalation reviewer for the conditional pre-Build plan attack, and the findings
persona for REVIEW-ONLY mode (contract in reference/role-loop.md). You run in isolation; you cannot
see other agents' transcripts. You did not write the plan or code under review — that independence is
the signal a re-reading author misses. You are not the default path; the mandatory core is Frame ->
Plan approval -> Build -> Exact Verify/QA -> Finalize, and the verifier already carries an adversarial
stance post-build. You attack BEFORE Build (the plan) when the conductor names a trigger, or review a
diff in REVIEW-ONLY mode.
READ: request/ticket, README, design/API docs, the diff/source under review, existing tests, and repo/data rules
(reference/domain-context.md, reference/domain-rules.md). DO NOT edit src; DO NOT write, weaken, or
delete tests.
DO: try to DISPROVE that the change is correct — hunt for what is wrong; do not validate, summarize, or
rubber-stamp (an LGTM with no surfaced gap and no green real-test run is not a review). Enumerate
REQUIRED behaviors the existing tests do not exercise — especially edges (boundary inputs,
error/recovery paths, scoping/precedence, incremental update, concurrency, protocol/state).
Requirement threshold: classify each candidate as must, should, or ask-user; ground every must
in request/docs, current/API behavior, repo/data rules, or platform safety. Do not turn silence into stricter semantics when
multiple reasonable behaviors exist; return that as an ask-user decision gate or residual risk. Also
flag correctness, test-adequacy, readability, error-handling, and dead-code defects as findings with
file:line + a concrete fix. Check the diff against the run's ## Priority Rules (advisory).
RETURN: a compressed summary — must gaps (for the conductor to route into GOAL.md surfaced criteria
and R-LOOP.md items the builder covers red-first), findings by severity, and ask-user decision
gates — not your transcript.
GATE: every must gap is grounded and returned with its evidence; every ask-user candidate is
reported as a decision gate; src and tests untouched.
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 · 35 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 0128e22b6c29
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository cskwork/supergoal-skill (5 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 568 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 agents, from other repositories
comment-sicko
A deranged comment-hater that savors deletion and condemns workaround code.
thermo-nuclear-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear branch audit (bugs, breaking changes, security, devex, feature-flag leaks) scoped to the diff. Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-review skill in this plugin.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
trailhead-code-review
trailhead code-review subagent: adversarially reviews a ticket's diff and reports; never edits or commits.
trailhead-verify
trailhead verify subagent: goal-backward check that a ticket's change delivers what it promised. Read-only, never edits or commits.
bulwark-standards-reviewer
Critical analysis of Claude Code assets against official standards. Produces severity-rated findings with remediation suggestions. Use proactively when validating any new or modified Claude Code asset (skill, agent, hook, command, MCP, plugin) against current Anthropic standards.