Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowers. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowers/main/.agent/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowersWrote 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/bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowers/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowers/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowers/requesting-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00022 | $0.00685 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00342 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00137 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
83% identical to requesting-code-review — 34 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:
Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}- What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
Example
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
[Subagent returns]:
Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
Issues:
Important: Missing progress indicators
Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
Assessment: Ready to proceed
You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 106 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A a5ff68586ccf
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bonnguyenitc/antigravity-superpowers (19 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 685 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 34 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
codeck
Route explicit requests from a host coding agent to one or more locally configured AI executors through Codeck, attach Markdown or other project files, moderate cross-model consultation, expose disagreements, and synthesize traceable results. Use when the user explicitly names Codeck or asks to consult, compare, or…
review-checklist
A structured checklist for reviewing work and bringing the review to a clear close. It covers preparing evidence, freezing the checklist, updating status, and resolving remaining items.
audit-tech-design
A review checklist for technical designs, covering architecture, technology choices, and the plan for implementing a system or feature.
expert-output-quality
A quality-checking guide for expert-level code, documentation, examples, test fixtures, quick starts, technical plans, and reports. It distinguishes recommended production paths from framework features, test-only boundaries, and unsupported patterns.
audit-execution-guide
An execution-review guide for checking coding work in prioritized batches and targeted subsets. Its excerpt does not provide more detail about the checks it performs.
audit-project
An engineering review skill covering twelve project-audit areas. The listed areas include code quality, project structure, dependency safety, and resource leaks.