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 bromso/metapowers --skill codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bromso/metapowersWrote 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/bromso/metapowers/code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bromso/metapowers/code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bromso/metapowers/code/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/bromso/metapowers/code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bromso/metapowers/code.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00377 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00151 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
code scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Code Coaching
Review "$ARGUMENTS" through the lens of a senior software engineer. Provide mentorship feedback on code quality, architecture patterns, security, performance, and testing.
Prerequisites
None — this is a utility skill that can run anytime.
Process
-
Read the target:
- Read the source code files specified in "$ARGUMENTS"
- If it's a directory, read the key files
- Understand the context: what does this code do?
-
Read reference material:
- Read
plugins/coaching/shared/code-principles.mdfor engineering principles - Read
plugins/coaching/shared/feedback-format.mdfor output structure
- Read
-
Evaluate against engineering principles:
- SOLID: Single responsibility, open/closed, Liskov, interface segregation, dependency inversion
- Clean code: Naming clarity, function size, abstraction levels, self-documenting code
- DRY/YAGNI/KISS: Appropriate abstraction level, no premature optimization
- Security: Input validation, injection prevention, secrets management, auth patterns
- Performance: N+1 queries, appropriate data structures, caching, lazy loading
- Database: Normalization, indexing, query patterns, transactions
- Testing: Coverage, behavior vs. implementation testing, test quality
- Error handling: Appropriate error types, no swallowed errors, graceful degradation
-
Write the coaching report to
.metapowers/coaching/$ARGUMENTS/code-review.mdfollowing the feedback format.
Output
The code coaching report written to .metapowers/coaching/$ARGUMENTS/code-review.md. Present the score and top 3 suggestions to the user.
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 · 39 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 4fac93c0e3d1
code is a skill published in the GitHub repository bromso/metapowers (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 377 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
challenge
Use before a root-cause, done/verified claim, irreversible action, or 2nd-time fix reaches the owner (APEX or plain conversation); also fires at every eLicit/Verify gate. Not for code correctness (use sniper).
code-quality
Use when validating code quality after modifications -- SOLID compliance, DRY duplication, linter errors, architecture violations. Do NOT use for functional verification (run verification FIRST, then code-quality).
elicitation
Use when an expert agent self-reviews and self-corrects code after the Execute phase, before sniper validation (BMAD-METHOD elicitation techniques).
react-effects-audit
Use when auditing React or Next.js components for unnecessary or unsafe useEffect usage -- detects 9 anti-patterns from "You Might Not Need an Effect".
pr-summary
Summarize current pull request with diff, comments, and changed files. Use when reviewing PRs or before merging.
sniper-check
Use when validating code quality after modifications. Runs sniper agent in isolated forked context for clean, fast validation.