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 HECer/yoke --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HECer/yokeWrote 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/hecer/yoke/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hecer/yoke/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/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/hecer/yoke/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/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 | $0.00732 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
83% identical to requesting-code-review — 38 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:
Use the host's available read-only reviewer mechanism and fill the review template. Do not assume a Task tool exists. Inside a Yoke worker, hand evidence to Yoke's configured reviewer instead of launching nested agents. If independent review is unavailable, report that limitation; self-review is not an equivalent substitute.
Placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}- What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
Example
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(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/superpowers/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]
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 Changed 513680ce981d
- 1mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A a5ff68586ccf
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HECer/yoke (2 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 732 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 38 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
refine-tests
Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the project's test design and writing conventions. Typically invoked as /refine-tests .
work-review
Perform exhaustive code reviews using multi-agent analysis. Reviews PRs, branches, or current changes. Writes review.findings.json to the active session. Triggers on "review", "code review", "check PR".
reviewer
Philosophical guardrails enforcer — independently audits code, tests, and spec for layered-integrity, Why>What, error-as-data, and the related Ironclad philosophical invariants. Activate only when the connected project contains spec.yaml or the user explicitly names Cladding; ignore ordinary requests in uninitialized…
red-blue-review
An optional adversarial review process for requirement analyses. One agent produces the analysis, while an independent reviewer checks its report, database definitions, alignment records, and requirements for missed issues.
audit
Use when the user asks to audit this repo, run the engineering audit, run a practice audit, or check the codebase against the engineering-audit rules pack. Drives the engineering-audit MCP server's tools through a full audit run and produces a self-contained HTML report.
review-health
Audit any repository's structural health and prompt surface, and file the findings as proposed epics and one-PR issues.