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 elleryfamilia/loadout --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elleryfamilia/loadoutWrote 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/elleryfamilia/loadout/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/elleryfamilia/loadout/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elleryfamilia/loadout/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/elleryfamilia/loadout/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elleryfamilia/loadout/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 | $0.00022 | $0.00659 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
83% identical to requesting-code-review — 24 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:
Dispatch a general-purpose subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary of what you built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
Example
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
[Subagent returns]:
Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
Issues:
Important: Missing progress indicators
Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
Assessment: Ready to proceed
You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]
Integration with Workflows
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 · 104 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 1017ccdd5bc6
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository elleryfamilia/loadout (32 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 659 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 24 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-agent-work
Review the changes a CodeAgent session made, and open or review a pull request when the user asks.
first-tree-github-scan
Agent skill for handling a single GitHub notification spawned by the First Tree github-scan daemon. Use when an agent needs to decide how to tag, comment on, escalate, or hand off a PR, issue, review request, mention, or CI event, and when it needs to choose between handling on GitHub or routing to first-tree-sync /…
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
hunk-release
Prepares, publishes, verifies, and curates Hunk releases. Use for release metadata, benchmarks, tags, publishing, release videos, backports, or recovery.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.