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 burugo/behavior-driven-development --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/burugo/behavior-driven-developmentWrote 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/burugo/behavior-driven-development/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/burugo/behavior-driven-development/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/burugo/behavior-driven-development/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/burugo/behavior-driven-development/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/burugo/behavior-driven-development/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 | $0.00033 | $0.00696 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00278 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00070 |
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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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 · 106 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 9f4eddb67cfb
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository burugo/behavior-driven-development (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 696 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
clawhub-pr-maintainer
Use when reviewing, triaging, validating, or discussing ClawHub GitHub issues or pull requests, including author context, CI, UI proof, evidence, labels, close decisions, and maintainer handoff.
adversarial-review
A multi-stage code review process in which one reviewer looks for failures, another independently checks the findings and the changed code, and a final reviewer decides which findings stand. It requires evidence such as code locations or test results and states that the reviewers may still share the same model's blind spots.
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.