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 datit309/supergraph --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/datit309/supergraphWrote 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/datit309/supergraph/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/datit309/supergraph/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/datit309/supergraph/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/datit309/supergraph/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/datit309/supergraph/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 | $0.00024 | $0.01748 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00699 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00350 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/supergraph:review
Final gate before merge. Graph-enhanced review with plan awareness.
Prerequisites
/supergraph:fixcompleted (tests pass, lint clean)
Usage
/supergraph:review | plan auth-login | plan auth-login task 2
Steps
0. Announce
"🔍 /supergraph:review — starting graph-enhanced code review..."
1. Select Plan Context
0 plans → skip | 1 → use | >1 → ask | plan <slug> → match.
Parse tasks, scope to task N if provided.
2. Capture Git Range
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse origin/master || git rev-parse origin/main || git rev-parse HEAD~1)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
git diff --stat "$BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA" && git diff --name-only "$BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA"
Use plan checkpoint commits as range if available. No changed files → check plan for incomplete tasks.
3. Graph Analysis (tiered)
Reindex first for CBM_PROJECT (see references/codebase-memory-contract.md#Lifecycle): index_status; if stale/degraded → index_repository (skip if BASE_SHA unchanged and .supergraph-env fresh). Then codebase-memory-mcp detect_changes, trace_path, get_graph_schema.
Tiered recipes (pick by blast radius):
- Micro (≤2 files, <20 lines, no hub/bridge):
cycles+test-gapsonly (0.04s) - Standard (≤5 files, no cross-boundary):
cycles/hubs/test-gaps+ optionalcross-boundary - Full (>5 files or hub/bridge/cross-boundary): all
cycles, hubs, bridges, test-gaps, complexity, cross-boundary(0.12s). Per file:query_graph(query_type="tests", target=file).
3b. Serena (optional, selective): See serena/SKILL.md:Setup. If scan not run, call initial_instructions first. Only for hub/bridge or complexity>10 files: find_referencing_symbols/find_implementations per symbol and get_diagnostics_for_file per file. Otherwise skip. Pass as "Serena findings". Skip if unavailable.
4. Dispatch Code Reviewer (tiered, parallel with tests)
Tiered (pick by blast radius):
- Micro (≤2 files, <20 lines, no hub/bridge): skip code-reviewer agent —
tests+lint+cycles+test-gapsđủ,Criticalchỉ từtests/lint/circular(LLM 30-60s saved) - Standard (≤5 files, no cross-boundary): Stage1 Spec Compliance only, parallel with tests
- Full (>5 files or hub/bridge/cross-boundary): 2-stage (Spec→Quality), parallel with tests. Join before Step 6.
Agent(subagent_type="supergraph:code-reviewer", prompt="Review BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA. Spec first, then quality (Standard: Stage1 only). BASE_SHA/HEAD_SHA, git diff --stat + git diff (first 300 lines, or --name-only + snippets for large diffs), Graph: hubs/bridges/surprise/flows/gaps, Serena findings, Plan requirements. Output: strengths, Critical/Important/Minor, verdict YES|WITH_FIXES|NO")
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 Changed · +4 lines d9ebe0bc6457
- 1mo ago First seen · 142 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 550e12cea07c
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository datit309/supergraph (21 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,748 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
arch-review
Team baseline for architecture, design-doc, and RFC review — produces summary, strengths, concerns, and open questions. Auto-triggers when you say review this design, review this architecture, review this proposal, review my RFC, poke holes in this proposal, is this design sound, or critique this tech spec. Defers to…
security-review
Team baseline for security review — a best-effort heuristic security pass over a diff or change-set. Auto-triggers for review this for security, any vulnerabilities here, security pass on this diff, is this code secure, check this for security issues, or security review this. Uses installed scanners when available…
pr-review
Team baseline for PR and code review — produces scope, blockers, nits, and strengths. Auto-triggers when you say review this PR, check this diff, review these changes, pre-review before I share, what do you think of this PR, or review the diff on this branch. Defers to any other installed skill whose description…
understand-diff
Use when you need to analyze git diffs or pull requests to understand what changed, affected components, and risks.
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…
playwright-cli
Automates browser interactions for testing and validating your own web applications using playwright-cli. Use when you need terminal-first browser control for navigation, form filling, screenshots, tracing, bound browser sessions, debugging, or generating Playwright test code. Only use against applications you own or…