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 christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix --skill superpowers-receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonixWrote 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/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-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/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-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 | $0.00026 | $0.01139 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00456 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
superpowers-receiving-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 — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Reception
Overview
Code review = technical evaluation. Not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness beats social comfort.
The Response Pattern
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Full feedback, no reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical ack or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
Forbidden Responses
NEVER:
- "You're absolutely right!" (performative agreement)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
INSTEAD: restate technical requirement; ask clarifying questions; push back with technical reasoning if wrong; or just start working (actions > words).
Handling Unclear Feedback
IF any item unclear:
STOP - implement nothing yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
Partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "Understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Source-Specific Handling
From your human partner
- Trusted — implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement — skip to action or technical ack
From External Reviewers (or a reviewer subagent)
BEFORE implementing:
1. Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Breaks existing functionality?
3. Reason for the current implementation?
4. Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Does the reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong: push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions: stop and discuss first
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 · 152 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 0e60a94a8ee8
superpowers-receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix (102 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,139 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
gh-pr-review
Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks…
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.
lean-strict-verification-gate
Use when checking whether a Lean artifact can safely support a research claim.
behavior-preserving-cleanup
Use for a clarity-only pass that must not change behavior — simplifying, renaming, de-duplicating, or restructuring code, configs, research scripts, or prose. Gates on understanding the target before touching it and re-verifies after each change so behavior stays fixed.
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.