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 GGbond-bo/MemOmics-Agent --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GGbond-bo/MemOmics-AgentWrote 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/ggbond-bo/memomics-agent/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ggbond-bo/memomics-agent/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ggbond-bo/memomics-agent/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/ggbond-bo/memomics-agent/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ggbond-bo/memomics-agent/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 | $0.00020 | $0.02128 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00851 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00426 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00213 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
os.system(f"ls {user_input}") This is a copy
94% identical to requesting-code-review — 6 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 — 281 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-Commit Code Verification
Automated verification pipeline before code lands. Static scans, baseline-aware quality gates, an independent reviewer subagent, and an auto-fix loop.
Core principle: No agent should verify its own work. Fresh context finds what you miss.
When to Use
- After implementing a feature or bug fix, before
git commitorgit push - When user says "commit", "push", "ship", "done", "verify", or "review before merge"
- After completing a task with 2+ file edits in a git repo
- After each task in subagent-driven-development (the two-stage review)
Skip for: documentation-only changes, pure config tweaks, or when user says "skip verification".
This skill vs github-code-review: This skill verifies YOUR changes before committing.
github-code-review reviews OTHER people's PRs on GitHub with inline comments.
Step 1 — Get the diff
git diff --cached
If empty, try git diff then git diff HEAD~1 HEAD.
If git diff --cached is empty but git diff shows changes, tell the user to
git add <files> first. If still empty, run git status — nothing to verify.
If the diff exceeds 15,000 characters, split by file:
git diff --name-only
git diff HEAD -- specific_file.py
Step 2 — Static security scan
Scan added lines only. Any match is a security concern fed into Step 5.
# Hardcoded secrets
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -iE "(api_key|secret|password|token|passwd)\s*=\s*['\"][^'\"]{6,}['\"]"
# Shell injection
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "os\.system\(|subprocess.*shell=True"
# Dangerous eval/exec
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "\beval\(|\bexec\("
# Unsafe deserialization
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "pickle\.loads?\("
# SQL injection (string formatting in queries)
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "execute\(f\"|\.format\(.*SELECT|\.format\(.*INSERT"
Step 3 — Baseline tests and linting
Detect the project language and run the appropriate tools. Capture the failure count BEFORE your changes as baseline_failures (stash changes, run, pop). Only NEW failures introduced by your changes block the commit.
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 · 281 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 1126afb626b3
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository GGbond-bo/MemOmics-Agent (30 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,128 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). It is 94% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…