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 dork-labs/dorkos --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dork-labs/dorkosWrote 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/dork-labs/dorkos/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dork-labs/dorkos/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dork-labs/dorkos/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/dork-labs/dorkos/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dork-labs/dorkos/requesting-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 | $0.00039 | $0.01673 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00669 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00335 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00167 |
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 24d 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 — 190 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch a code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each batch of related tasks in spec-driven development (
/flow:execute) — holistic batch-level review, not per-task review - After completing a major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing a complex bug
Lightweight Alternative
For quick self-review without dispatching a subagent, trace through recently modified functions yourself to verify correctness and completeness inline. Use the full code-reviewer subagent (below) for deeper, more rigorous review.
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main for full branch review
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "code-reviewer". Supply the following context:
Required context:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}— What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}— What it should do (spec path, task description, or requirements){BASE_SHA}— Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}— Ending commit{DESCRIPTION}— Brief summary of the changes
DorkOS-specific review concerns to include:
- FSD layer violations (shared <- entities <- features <- widgets)
- Transport interface compliance (HttpTransport and mock transports)
- SDK import confinement — each runtime SDK stays in its adapter directory:
@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk→services/runtimes/claude-code/,@openai/codex-sdk→services/runtimes/codex/,@opencode-ai/sdk→services/runtimes/opencode/ os.homedir()ban (must uselib/dork-home.ts)- TSDoc on exports
- Tailwind class sorting (prettier-plugin-tailwindcss)
- Barrel import conventions (import from
index.ts, never internal paths)
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.
- 24d ago Changed 7b6f659e788d
- 1mo ago First seen · 190 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A ef845c047af0
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository dork-labs/dorkos (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,673 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
besimple-broccoli-blind
Non-interactive wrapper: plan-sketch -> auto-pick recommended options -> plan-write -> plan-critique-loop -> implement-from-plan -> claude-simplify-wrapper -> dedup -> code-review-loop. No PR creation and no Linear comments.
code-review-loop
Iterative review+fix loop for BASESHA..HEAD: generate findings, apply accepted fixes, run checks, commit, and re-review up to 3 iterations or until clean.
dedup
Dedupe-only pass for BASESHA..HEAD: remove duplicate code introduced by the diff or reuse existing shared utils; applies changes + commits.
plan-critique-loop
Critique and revise an existing plan doc up to 3 iterations, using accept/reject triage and stopping early when no important feedback remains. Use when refining a plan/.md before implementation.
adversarial-reviewer
Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes — before merging a PR, after a sprint, or when you suspect the review is being too agreeable. Forces perspective shifts through three hostile reviewer personas (Saboteur, New Hire, Security Auditor) that play concurrent, crash, retry and malicious-input…
card-review
Internal skill for onboard's semantic review gate. After the deterministic validation gate (which catches invented symbols / hash drift / secrets), this skill drives a sampled claude -p pass that checks whether the TLDR and role are DIRECTIONALLY ACCURATE given the file's structure and head snippet. The deterministic…