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 agentmods add skills/lbk-open/super-spec/ss-code-reviewnpx skills add lbk-open/super-spec --skill ss-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lbk-open/super-specWhat 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 | $0.00106 | $0.06760 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.03380 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01352 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00676 |
Grade A, and why
ss-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 2d 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 — 664 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Multi-Agent Code Review
Review a diff using independent, parallel subagents: one for general code quality, up to three for coding-standard compliance (global, stack, and project level), one for OpenSpec compliance when delta specs are present, and — in post-coding mode with enough scope — one cross-task integration reviewer. Each subagent reviews in isolation; none sees another's output. The confidence score each subagent reports is used to filter out false positives.
Core principle: several independent perspectives catch more than one comprehensive reviewer would, and isolation prevents anchoring bias.
Inputs
Supply one of:
- a pull request URL (what GitLab calls a merge request, or MR — same concept, detected automatically);
- an explicit SHA range (
--base <sha> --head <sha>); - nothing, to review the current branch against its upstream merge-base.
For the post-coding mode invoked by ss-coding, also supply --post-coding --plan <plan-file-path>.
If a URL is given, also fetch its title, description, and commit messages for context.
Iron Rules
- Subagents are independent — each reviewer works in isolation; never share one subagent's findings with another.
- Subagents score their own confidence — each assigns a 0-100 confidence score to every issue it reports. The orchestrator only filters by threshold; it never re-scores.
- Don't trust self-assessment — "looks good" from a subagent that cited no file:line evidence gets one re-dispatch with an explicit instruction to look again. If the second attempt is still empty, accept it.
- No false courtesy — don't soften or inflate findings; be direct, specific, and actionable.
- The orchestrator doesn't review — you dispatch subagents, filter by threshold, consolidate results, and format the output. You never add your own opinion or judge code quality.
- Only flag new issues — subagents flag issues only on lines modified in this diff. Pre-existing problems on untouched lines are not issues.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 664 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A 986f3910f0e1
ss-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository lbk-open/super-spec (1 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 6,760 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
etsy-category-listing
Etsy category page scraper: given an Etsy category URL (e.g. https://www.etsy.com/c/jewelry) and optional page number, returns paginated product listings with listingId, shopId, title, url, image, salePrice, originalPrice, currency, rating, reviewCount, shopName, isAd, freeShipping, badge from category and subcategory…
amazon-reviews-api-skill
This skill helps users automatically extract Amazon product reviews via the Amazon Reviews API. Agent should proactively apply this skill when users express needs like getting reviews for Amazon product with ASIN B07TS6R1SF, analyzing customer feedback for a specific Amazon item, getting ratings and comments for a…
amazon-competitor-analyzer
Scrapes Amazon product data from ASINs using browseract.com automation API and performs surgical competitive analysis. Compares specifications, pricing, review quality, and visual strategies to identify competitor moats and vulnerabilities.
audit-reproducibility
Enforce the replication-protocol.md rule by cross-checking numeric claims in a manuscript against the actual R / Stata / Python outputs. Report PASS/FAIL per claim against tolerance thresholds. Use before submission and before releasing a replication package.
research-report
Summarize deep research results into markdown report, cover all fields, skip uncertain values.
ln-21-documentation-auditor
Audits documentation and code comments for structure, coverage, factual accuracy, and maintainability. Use for documentation trust reviews; not code, test, or architecture audits.