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 agentmods add skills/6bnbn/flowpilot/code-reviewnpx skills add 6BNBN/FlowPilot --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/6BNBN/FlowPilotWhat 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 | $0.00031 | $0.00539 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00054 |
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 2d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codex-Native PR Code Review
Use this workflow to review a pull request or diff with gh when available. Keep findings high-signal, actionable, and grounded in the actual change.
Source of truth
eferences/code-review-command.md
Review Workflow
-
Eligibility check
- Confirm the PR is still open and ready for review.
- Skip review if it is clearly out of scope, already handled, or obviously trivial.
-
Collect local guidance
- Identify the relevant AGENTS.md files for the touched paths.
- Treat those files as code-review guidance when applicable.
-
Summarize the change
- Use one fast subagent to summarize the PR and changed areas.
-
Run parallel review passes
- Launch independent review subagents with different lenses:
- conventions and AGENTS.md compliance
- correctness and bug risk
- history and git blame context
- prior PR or discussion context when relevant
- comments or invariants near the changed code
- Launch independent review subagents with different lenses:
-
Confidence-check findings
- Re-check each finding with a separate pass before surfacing it.
- Drop weak or speculative issues.
-
Filter for signal
- Ignore trivial lint, formatting, or typecheck issues that CI should catch separately.
- Ignore pre-existing issues unless the current PR makes them worse.
- Keep only the issues that matter to a senior engineer reviewing this change.
-
Comment or report
- If the user asked for a GitHub comment, use gh to post it.
- Otherwise, present the findings directly in the session.
Comment Format
Use this structure for final findings:
`markdown
Code review
Found 2 issues:
-
Brief description of issue
- Why it matters
- Evidence: file path or URL with full commit SHA when linking to GitHub
-
Brief description of issue
- Why it matters
- Evidence: file path or URL with full commit SHA when linking to GitHub `
If no issues remain after filtering:
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 78 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 490ed168bc10
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository 6BNBN/FlowPilot (133 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 539 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
coding-agents-farm
To orchestrate parallel coding-agent farms (Claude, Codex, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) on isolated git worktrees.
agent-orchestration-multi-agent-optimize-v2
Multi-Agent Optimization Toolkit workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Optimize multi-agent systems with coordinated profiling, workload distribution, and cost-aware orchestration. Use when improving agent performance, throughput, or reliability and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow…
nobrainer-ultra
Use when the owner says nb-ultra, nb-flow, nb-workflow, ultracode, or asks to set up, upgrade, or reconcile a project's agent workflow; or wants one non-trivial task taken from brief requirements through a complete skill-routed plan, guarded autonomous execution, useful multi-session work and final evidence audit.
nobrainer-dispatcher
Use when the owner says nb-dispatcher or nobrainer-dispatcher, or when an approved execution map has multiple queued work units that require ready-set selection, dependency-aware ordering, bounded parallel batches, retry scheduling, or routing audited results to the next queued unit; do not use for one coherent task…
nobrainer-autoimprove
Use when the owner says nb-autoimprove, deep-autoresearch, code-autoresearch, nobrainer-capture-lesson, or nobrainer-continuous-improvement; asks to improve a skill or prompt; or wants a measurable bounded baseline-variant-evaluation loop instead of one subjective rewrite.
nobrainer-writing
Use when the owner says nb-write, nobrainer-writing, nobrainer-style, or nobrainer-human-like, or asks to draft, rewrite, compress, humanize, edit, or review user-facing prose such as a message, comment, document, README, report, summary, email, post, or release note; maximize useful information per word without…