Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to charliehzm/medharness. 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/charliehzm/medharness/main/.claude/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/charliehzm/medharnessWrote 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/charliehzm/medharness/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/charliehzm/medharness/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/charliehzm/medharness/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/charliehzm/medharness/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/charliehzm/medharness/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 | $0.00135 | $0.00599 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00054 | $0.00240 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00060 |
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.
What it actually says
Requesting Code Review
The "second pair of eyes" gate. Functional, not compliance — that's Step 10.
Review packet contents
When asking for a review, always include:
- The diff (limited to the task's ≤ 2 files)
- The task document
- The relevant spec id(s)
- Reference to design.md and (if applicable) ARCH_INPUT_INDEX
- The PHI handling note (if L3/L4)
What the reviewer checks
| Layer | Examples |
|---|---|
| Correctness | matches spec; covers acceptance criteria |
| Code health | readable, lean (no dead code, no extra comments) |
| Security | input validation, error handling at boundaries, injection surface |
| Maintainability | tests align, naming sensible |
| Reuse | did the author miss an existing utility (reference/legacy-utilities-index.md)? |
Workflow
- Compose review packet.
- Dispatch to Reviewer-Agent (with heterogeneous model — DON'T use coder's model) or to a human.
- Capture feedback in
REVIEW_THREAD.md. - For each feedback item: classify Critical / Major / Minor.
- Address Critical + Major via
systematic-debugging. - Minor: address or accept-and-record.
- Close when all Critical and Major are closed.
Common failure modes
- Self-review on same model — coder and reviewer share model = correlated blind spots. Mitigation: enforce heterogeneity.
- Drive-by approvals — reviewer skims and approves. Mitigation: require explicit checklist signoff.
- Long-running review threads — drags. Mitigation: 24h SLA; auto-escalate.
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 · 62 lines · 135 tokens per session scan A 8c98630bc17e
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository charliehzm/medharness (86 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 135 tokens to every session and 599 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
hipaa-review
Performs a HIPAA Security Rule compliance review against all Administrative, Physical, and Technical Safeguards defined in 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart C. Auto-invoked when discussing healthcare data security, ePHI protection, HIPAA audit readiness, or business associate compliance. Evaluates required and addressable…
HIPAA Compliance Testing
Testing HIPAA compliance for healthcare applications including PHI handling, audit logging, access controls, and data encryption verification.
Healthcare Compliance
HIPAA compliance, healthcare regulations, privacy and security standards for medical organizations and providers.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
cross-model-review
A second-opinion code review that asks a different AI model to independently inspect a change, then compares both reviews. It focuses on logic, security, consistency, and omissions.