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 andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojoWrote 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/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/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/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/requesting-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 | $0.00016 | $0.01122 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00449 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00112 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review Skill
Self-reviews the agent's own output against the original plan before declaring done or opening a PR. Surfaces issues by severity; critical issues block progress. Does NOT replace human review — it ensures the human review starts from a defensible baseline.
When to Use
- A task or batch of tasks is complete.
- Between major implementation phases.
- Before creating a pull request.
- Before telling the user "done" on any non-trivial change.
- After a sub-agent returns delegated work.
Prerequisites
- An approved plan in
tasks/todo.md(or equivalent design doc). - The
viewandgreptools to read the diff and surrounding code. gitfor the diff inspection.- A green test run (the
verify-before-doneskill should already have run).
How to Run
1. Compare implementation to the plan spec, criterion by criterion.
2. Walk the self-review checklist.
3. Tag each finding 🔴 / 🟡 / 🟢 / ✅.
4. Act on findings — 🔴 blocks, 🟡 fixed before PR, 🟢 logged.
5. Emit a short summary before claiming completion.
Quick Reference
| Severity | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | Wrong behavior, security risk, broken test | STOP. Fix before next task. |
| 🟡 Major | Should fix before merge | Fix before PR; OK to continue current task |
| 🟢 Minor | Style, nit, future improvement | Log to tasks/todo.md follow-ups |
| ✅ Passing | Criterion met | Note in summary |
| Checklist item | Look at |
|---|---|
| Matches plan spec | tasks/todo.md |
| Tests pass (including new) | Latest test run output |
| No debug artifacts | grep for console.log, print, TODO |
| Edge cases covered | The new test file |
| No security regressions | Auth, input validation, secrets |
| Follows project conventions | Adjacent files |
| Diff scope = task scope | git diff main --stat |
Procedure
Step 1: Compare to Plan
Open tasks/todo.md with view. For the task just completed, read its acceptance criteria. Tick each one explicitly — do not summarize.
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 · 133 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 9cb9e31cbcbc
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo (54 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,122 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
code-review
Use to judge a concrete diff, branch, or GitHub PR on its own merits with no rsc-SDD spec/plan chain to key off — the spec-less giving pass behind /code-review: only findings you can defend, one verdict, read-only unless --comment or --fix. NOT the SDD gate keyed to 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ that also processes incoming…
quality-gate
Use when you need to check if current work meets quality thresholds before proceeding to the next phase or merging.
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.
review
Use when a green diff needs adversarial judgment in the rsc SDD chain, between verify and ship — give a review keyed to the spec/plan/constitution in 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/, or receive one and verify each comment before agreeing. NOT running lint/type/tests (that is verify), NOT the spec-less standalone pass (that is…
review-this-branch
Run the nohuman review gate (fresh-session adversarial reviewer + tamper guard) over the current branch or a GitHub pull request, with no server, no database, and no onboarding, and relay the pass/fail checklist.
design-loop
Use when something must be built well and there is a real reference it should beat: turn what makes the reference good into measured mechanisms, then run a builder and three fresh-context critics until all three pass. Fires on 'design loop', 'make it as good as ', 'it looks generic'. NOT keeping an already-won look…