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/requesting-code-reviewnpx skills add 6BNBN/FlowPilot --skill requesting-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00310 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00155 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 2d 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 (133 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 310 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
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-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-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-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.