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 J-Pster/Psters_AI_Workflow --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/J-Pster/Psters_AI_WorkflowWrote 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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00139 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00056 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00028 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00014 |
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.
What it actually says
Requesting Code Review
Use this skill when you want a consistent, high-signal review request.
How to use
- Define review scope:
- target diff/branch/PR
- changed file list
- Ask reviewer to use the template in
code-reviewer.md. - Require severity-labeled findings with concrete recommendations.
Output requirements
- Findings first, ordered by severity.
- Each finding includes impacted files/symbols.
- Keep summaries short; focus on risks and regressions.
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 First seen · 23 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 859754cc231d
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository J-Pster/Psters_AI_Workflow (289 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 139 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gza-task-improve
Address feedback for a gza task inline — reads review findings and/or unresolved comments, checks out the branch, fixes must-fix items and comments, runs verify, and commits.
verification-gate
You MUST use this when work is about to be called complete, done, fixed, ready, or mergeable - before a completion claim, a merge or pull request, a branch finish, or a handoff report.
review-request
You MUST use this when a completed or partially committed implementation needs an independent code review against explicit requirements, a defined task scope, and the actual Git diff, including committed and working-tree changes.
llm-gate
LLM-powered quality verification using prompt hooks. Validates commit messages, code patterns, and conventions using AI before allowing operations. Use to set up intelligent guardrails.
smart-commit
Run quality gates, review staged changes for issues, and create a well-crafted conventional commit. Use when saying "commit", "git commit", "save my changes", or ready to commit after making changes.
openclaw-github-repo-commander
7-stage super workflow for GitHub repo audit, cleanup, PR review, and competitor analysis.