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 agentmods add skills/danielvm-git/bigpowers/request-reviewnpx skills add danielvm-git/bigpowers --skill request-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowersWhat 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 | $0.00056 | $0.01296 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00648 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00259 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
request-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 2d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
story: e45s28
Request Review
Dispatch fresh reviewer agents with clean contexts. Reviewers have no shared state — they find what the coding agent missed.
Distinct from audit-code: audit-code is self-review (internal). This skill dispatches external agents.
Solo developer note: Reviewer agents replace the human reviewer.
Run audit-code first. Don't waste reviewer attention on hygiene issues you could have caught yourself.
Santa Method — Dual-Blind AND Gate (e45s07)
Use two independent reviewers (Reviewer A and Reviewer B) with no shared context between them or the coding agent.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Reviewers | 2 (mandatory) |
MAX_REVIEW_ITERATIONS |
5 (hard cap — e45s28; iteration 6 forbidden) |
| Pass rule | AND-gate — both reviewers must pass independently |
| Blindness | Neither reviewer sees the other's report until both complete |
Iteration loop (max MAX_REVIEW_ITERATIONS):
- Dispatch Reviewer A and Reviewer B in parallel with identical briefs but separate contexts.
- Collect both reports. Each categorizes findings: must-fix / should-fix / consider.
- AND-gate: If either reviewer has must-fix findings → FAIL round. Run
respond-review, fix, re-dispatch both reviewers. - If both pass (zero must-fix, score ≥ 94% each) → review complete.
- After 5 iterations without dual pass → stop; report "Review cap exhausted (5/5). Human decision required." Do not merge.
HARD GATE — Single-reviewer pass is insufficient. Partial agreement does not satisfy the AND-gate.
Process
1. Prepare the review brief
Write a self-contained brief for each reviewer. Include:
- What was built (feature description, not implementation)
- Which files changed (the diff context)
- What
specs/artifacts are relevant (activeepics/eNN-*.yaml,requirements/SCOPE_LATEST.yaml,bugs/BUG-*.md) - What CONVENTIONS.md requires
- What the verify command is
- What you're most uncertain about (where you want fresh eyes)
- Security focus — If the epic has a
specs/security/epics/<id>/THREAT_MODEL.md, include the relevant vulnerability categories as reviewer focal points. Also include the false-positive exclusion rules so the reviewer avoids known-safe patterns. Tag the review assecurity-sensitive: trueif THREAT_MODEL risk is HIGH+.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 114 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A ab877bded8e6
request-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository danielvm-git/bigpowers (156 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,296 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
shared/tech-stack-detection
检测项目技术栈的通用方法，通过分析配置文件识别语言、框架、工具链.
devops/changelog-generation
自动生成 CHANGELOG，基于 git 提交历史和 pipeline 产物信息，遵循 Conventional Commits 和 Keep a Changelog 规范.
boss
可审计的 agent 团队：BMAD 全自动研发流水线编排器。编排 9 个专业 Agent（PM、架构师、UI Designer、Tech Lead、Scrum Master、Frontend、Backend、QA、DevOps）从需求到部署，每一步都有事件溯源 + 不可绕过门禁 + 确定性 eval——可验证测试真跑、门禁真过。支持单环节切片命令（/boss:plan /review /qa /ship）与无 CLI 纯 Markdown 降级。 Triggers: 'boss mode', '/boss', '全自动开发', '从需求到部署', '帮我做一个', 'build this', 'ship it', '全流程'…
debloat
Compress an artifact that has accreted into bloat — padding, over-qualification, fused sentences, walls of enumeration, adjacent restatement — down to its load-bearing density, meaning preserved. Use when prose is correct and current but has grown verbose or patched-over and you want it tight without a full rewrite.
bmad-dev-story
Execute story implementation following a context filled story spec file. Use when the user says "dev this story [story file]" or "implement the next story in the sprint plan".
bmad-validate-prd
Validate a PRD against standards. Use when the user says "validate this PRD" or "run PRD validation".