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 hekivo/superpowers-sage --skill reviewinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hekivo/superpowers-sageWrote 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/hekivo/superpowers-sage/reviewing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hekivo/superpowers-sage/reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hekivo/superpowers-sage/reviewing/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/hekivo/superpowers-sage/reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hekivo/superpowers-sage/reviewing.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 | $0.00141 | $0.01278 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00071 | $0.00639 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00256 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
superpowers-sage:reviewing 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 12d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing — Convention Audit + Design Alignment
Review code against Sage/Acorn conventions and verify alignment with design reference.
Inputs
$ARGUMENTS
If no scope specified, review all changed files (git diff against base branch).
Procedure
0) Determine scope
- If file path provided, review that file and related files
- If "all" or no argument, scan full project
- If active plan exists, focus on plan components
1) Convention checklist
Service Providers
-
ThemeServiceProviderextendsRoots\Acorn\Sage\SageServiceProvider; other feature providers extendIlluminate\Support\ServiceProvider -
register()only contains bindings (no hooks, no side effects) -
boot()contains hooks and initialization - Dependencies injected via constructor
ACF Blocks & Fields
- Blocks created via
acf:blockgenerator -
with()returns only data the view needs -
fields()uses Builder API - Block views use
$variablenotget_field() - Reusable fields extracted to Partials
Blade Templates
- Composers for data injection, Components for reusable UI
- No business logic in Blade views
- Proper layout inheritance (
@extends,@section,@yield)
Block Views
- R-css-vars: No
match($tone)→ Tailwind class strings; notone="*"props driving color; no hardcoded color utilities onh2/p/span→ G10 violation (CRITICAL) - R-component-reuse: No inline
<x-eyebrow>+<h2>when<x-section-header>exists; no raw<a>with button utilities when<x-button>exists → G9 violation - R-nl2br:
nl2br()only onaddTextarea()/addWysiwyg()fields, notaddText()→ G11 violation - R-arbitrary-btn: No
text-[*px]ortracking-[*px]in block/component views → CRITICAL
Routes & Controllers
- Clean route declarations (no logic in closures)
- Thin controllers (delegate to services)
- Prefer Acorn Routes over
register_rest_route()
Frontend
- Tailwind v4 CSS-first approach
- Assets referenced via
@vite()orVite::asset() - Editor styles included
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 135 lines · 141 tokens per session scan A e2936c923ebb
superpowers-sage:reviewing is a skill published in the GitHub repository hekivo/superpowers-sage (13 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 141 tokens to every session and 1,278 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
go-concurrency-safety
L1 supplement - audits Go-specific concurrency hazards in node client code: map iteration non-determinism, goroutine leaks, mutex ordering, panic boundaries, context cancellation.