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 CodeInfinity1/Stram --skill request-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CodeInfinity1/StramWrote 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/codeinfinity1/stram/request-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codeinfinity1/stram/request-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codeinfinity1/stram/request-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/codeinfinity1/stram/request-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codeinfinity1/stram/request-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 | $0.00028 | $0.00397 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00159 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
request-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
Request Code Review
Purpose
Help the user ask for a useful review. This skill packages a change so reviewers can understand intent, risk, verification, and open questions quickly.
When To Use
Use before PR creation, before asking another agent/human to review, or when preparing a review handoff.
Inputs And Evidence
- Changed files, commit/diff, test output, design intent, and unresolved questions.
- Risk areas, approvals, and known limitations.
Tool Map
run_shell_commandread_filediff_renderwrite_notecodex_cli_plancodex_cli_run
Workflow
- Inspect diff/status and identify the actual scope.
- Summarize what changed and why.
- List verification commands and results.
- Call out risks, assumptions, and known gaps.
- Ask focused reviewer questions.
- If delegating review, use Codex delegation only after approval and verify the result.
Native Implementation Boundaries
- Use native Git/shell, file, diff, and Codex tools.
- Do not import external reference requesting-code-review scripts.
- Do not fabricate test results.
Safety And Approval
- Do not push/open PR unless the user asks.
- Do not include secrets or unrelated local details in review notes.
- Preserve dirty worktree boundaries.
Verification
- Review request should match current diff.
- Test claims must match command output.
- Delegated review findings should be verified before action.
Failure Modes
- Asking reviewers to inspect too broad a scope.
- Hiding known risks.
- Summarizing stale changes after additional edits.
References
- Shortlist item:
request-code-review. - Related skill:
code-review.
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 · 67 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 6c3234023fdd
request-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CodeInfinity1/Stram (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 397 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
omh-verification-gate
This is an OMH verification-gate workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
omh-refactor-plan
This is an OMH refactor-plan workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
codex-adversarial-review
Use this skill to conduct aggressive, adversarial code reviews on git changes, branches, or PRs to detect critical edge cases, race conditions, security holes, and data loss risks. Triggers: user mentions "adversarial review", "break the code", "find vulnerabilities", "security audit PR", "race condition check", "ship…
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…