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 6BNBN/FlowPilot --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/6BNBN/FlowPilotWrote 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/6bnbn/flowpilot/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/6bnbn/flowpilot/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/6bnbn/flowpilot/requesting-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/6bnbn/flowpilot/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/6bnbn/flowpilot/requesting-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00310 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00124 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00062 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-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 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
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch a review subagent or run the code-review workflow before issues compound.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After a major feature lands
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck and you want a fresh perspective
- Before a risky refactor
- After fixing a subtle bug
How to Request
-
Gather the context to review:
- what changed
- what it was supposed to do
- the relevant diff or commit range
-
Dispatch a review subagent:
- use spawn_agent
- give it the requirements, diff context, and any relevant AGENTS.md guidance
- when reviewing GitHub PRs, include the PR number and gh workflow details if available
-
Act on the findings:
- fix critical issues immediately
- fix important issues before proceeding
- document any deferred minor issues
Review Prompt Inputs
- WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED
- PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS
- BASE_SHA
- HEAD_SHA
- DESCRIPTION
Red Flags
- Skipping review because the change feels simple
- Ignoring critical issues
- Proceeding with unfixed important issues
- Accepting review feedback without technical verification
See code-reviewer.md for the reusable review prompt template.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 54 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A aa41ce160a98
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository 6BNBN/FlowPilot (136 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 310 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
oma-refactor
Restructure existing code while preserving observable behavior. Use for targeted technical debt or hotspot work with characterization tests.
nobrainer-review
Use when the owner says nb-review, deep-audit, deep-code-review, or deep-autoreview; explicitly requests an evidence-gated CLOSEOUT, adversarial BUGHUNT or RELEASEGATE; or needs final findings filtered to verified actionable defects. Use nobrainer-build for ordinary implementation and correction work.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
oma-scholar
Search academic literature and generate, validate, or compare Knows paper sidecars. Use for claim/evidence analysis and literature synthesis.
oma-hwp
Convert Hangul HWP, HWPX, or HWPML documents to Markdown with kordoc. Use for text, table, and image extraction from these formats.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…