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 ed3dai/ed3d-plugins --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ed3dai/ed3d-pluginsWrote 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/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/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/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ed3dai/ed3d-plugins/requesting-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 | $0.00045 | $0.01666 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00666 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $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 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 227 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 0eced25b1656
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ed3dai/ed3d-plugins (252 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,666 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
load-pr-review
Load GitHub PR review comments into AI session — analyze, triage, plan. Default: analysis-only (no auto-fix). Use when: reviewing PR feedback, planning fixes, addressing review comments, replying to reviewers. Not for: creating reviews (use codex-review-fast), creating PRs (use create-pr), viewing PR status (use…
best-practices
Industry best practices conformance audit with mandatory adversarial debate. Produces audit artifact: verdict (OK/WARN/FAIL) + gap roadmap + debate proof. Use when: auditing current implementation against industry standards, checking compliance with best practices, benchmarking implementation quality, verifying a…
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
review-spec
Review technical spec documents from completeness, feasibility, risk, and code consistency perspectives.
codex-cli-review
Code review via Codex CLI with full disk access. Use when: deep review needing full codebase read, uncommitted change review. Not for: quick diff review (use codex-code-review), doc review (use doc-review). Output: severity-grouped findings + merge gate.