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 hannsxpeter/godpowers --skill god-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hannsxpeter/godpowersWrote 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/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-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/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hannsxpeter/godpowers/god-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00545 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
god-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 10d 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.
What it actually says
/god-review
- Work out the change set:
git diff <base>...HEADplus uncommitted work. The base defaults to the main branch or the last release tag. - Get the review from a fresh context. You choose how: any subagent your host offers, a separate session, or another tool, run however suits the work. Before you start the reviewer, say which model and effort you picked for it and why, then pass both explicitly (whichever your host accepts); never let it inherit yours. Size both to the change: a fast model at low effort for a small, low-risk diff; the most capable model at high effort for auth, data, money, or concurrency changes. Give the reviewer the diff scope, the requirements (from PLAN.md, or listed under Goal in STATE.md), relevant DECISIONS.md entries, the verify command, and this brief, but not your own conclusions:
- Correctness: does the change meet each requirement and its check, including error paths and unusual inputs?
- Tests: does each requirement have a test, including the cases that must not trigger it? A test that would still pass with the behavior broken is a finding; name the missing case.
- Blast radius: what depends on the changed code? Name the one fact that must hold for the change to be safe, and how it was proven.
- Safety and fit: input validation, auth, secrets, destructive operations, data loss; existing patterns, no scope creep.
- Output: findings as
severity: what, where, why, then pass or fail.
- Fix each finding or state why not. Critical and high findings you leave open go under Risks in STATE.md.
- If you changed code, record the check once after the fixes:
npx -y godpowers@7 verify "<verify command>". After a large fix, review the new diff again. - Record the outcome on the final code:
npx -y godpowers@7 record review --pass --summary "<one line>", or--failwith the reason. - When the review passes, set
stage: hardenin STATE.md if a security pass is due (the change touches a trust boundary, or the user asked to ship), otherwisestage: done.
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.
- 10d ago Changed d2f9840778f0
- 11d ago First seen · 20 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A aed4c4b0ca16
god-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hannsxpeter/godpowers (6 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 545 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 2026-09-27.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-bench
Trigger: bench, journey, journeys, driven mode, gentle-ai-bench, journey corpus, j-numbers, bench axis. Author and verify gentle-ai bench journeys; go test ./bench never proves driven execution.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
verify-against-rubric
Spawn a stateless sub-agent (Claude Code Agent tool, Cursor agent mode, or equivalent) with ONLY the artifact path plus the locked rubric plus read-only tools. Sub-agent returns a structured verdict (satisfied, needsrevision, or failed) plus per-criterion feedback. Distinct from self-critique-and-revise (same-context…
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", or "decompose conditional". Also trigger when cleaning up legacy code…
agent-pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
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…