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 eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-oneWrote 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/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/requesting-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00643 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00321 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
81% identical to requesting-code-review — 36 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:
Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}- What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
Example
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
[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
Subagent-Driven Development:
- Review after EACH task
- Catch issues before they compound
- Fix before moving to next task
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 106 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 2da31af22a58
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one (52 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 643 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 36 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review-fix-pipeline
Autonomous PR review that also applies fixes for non-controversial issues — combines review, fix, test, and commit into a single pipeline. Unlike a read-only review, this writes code. Only use on feature branches where you're comfortable with automatic edits. Trigger on: "review and fix PR", "auto-fix the PR", "clean…
phase-commit
Create one local commit for a completed, validated, and reviewed unit of work. Use only when the user explicitly requests a commit without pushing or other delivery actions.
ship
Review, fix, and commit in one run, with a gate before each phase.
avi-pr-flow
Automate PR workflow with commit, push, create PR, and review cycle.
contextual-commit
Write contextual commits that capture intent, decisions, and constraints alongside code changes. Use when committing code, finishing a task, or when the user asks to commit. Extends Conventional Commits with structured action lines in the commit body that preserve WHY code was written, not just WHAT changed.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.