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/magebyte-zero/spec-superflow/code-reviewernpx skills add MageByte-Zero/spec-superflow --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MageByte-Zero/spec-superflowWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.01275 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00638 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Two responsibilities: requesting review (dispatching a reviewer subagent) and receiving review (acting on feedback with technical rigor). Review early, review often. Verify before implementing feedback.
Part 1: Requesting Review
Mandatory after: each task in SDD, each planned execution wave, each major feature, before merge. Optional: when stuck, before refactoring, after fixing complex bugs.
Procedure
- Get SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)andHEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) - Dispatch
general-purposesubagent using template atskills/code-reviewer/code-reviewer-prompt.md - Fill placeholders:
[DESCRIPTION](what was built),[PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS](contract/spec reference),[BASE_SHA],[HEAD_SHA],[WAVE_ID], and a distinct[REVIEW_REPORT_FILE]. - Require the reviewer to write a non-empty persisted review report at
.superpowers/sdd/reviews/<wave-id>.md, then record that exact in-overlay path in the wave receipt withssf execution review <change-dir> --wave <wave-id> --base <base-sha> --head <head-sha> --report .superpowers/sdd/reviews/<wave-id>.md --verdict <pass|fail>. The execution plan initializes this directory; paths outside it are rejected for audit safety. - Act on feedback: Critical/Important findings require a
failreceipt, focused repair, re-review, and replacementpassreceipt before a dependent wave or closing can proceed. Note Minor for later, push back with reasoning if reviewer is wrong.
Minimality And Scope
For unrequested complexity, cite the missing task requirement and diff line. Use Important for merge-blocking complexity and Minor for safe, behavior-neutral redundancy; never score by line count.
Part 2: Receiving Review Feedback
The Response Pattern
- READ feedback without reacting
- UNDERSTAND and restate requirement
- VERIFY against codebase reality
- EVALUATE: technically sound for THIS codebase?
- RESPOND: technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
- IMPLEMENT: one item at a time, test each
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.
- yesterday First seen · 118 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A ab93a12cb26c
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository MageByte-Zero/spec-superflow (776 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,275 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
chinese-git-workflow
国内 Git 平台配置参考——Gitee、Coding.net、极狐 GitLab、CNB 的 SSH/HTTPS/凭据/CI 接入差异与镜像同步配置。仅在用户显式 /chinese-git-workflow 时调用，不要根据上下文自动触发。.
chinese-commit-conventions
中文 commit 与 changelog 配置参考——Conventional Commits 中文适配、commitlint/husky/commitizen 中文模板、conventional-changelog 中文配置。仅在用户显式 /chinese-commit-conventions 时调用，不要根据上下文自动触发。.
chinese-documentation
中文文档排版参考——中英文空格、全半角标点、术语保留、链接格式、中文文案排版指北约定。仅在用户显式 /chinese-documentation 时调用，不要根据上下文自动触发。.
systematic-debugging
Skill "systematic-debugging" from jnMetaCode/superpowers-zh, covering 系统化调试, 概述, 铁律, 何时使用 and 四个阶段.
workflow-runner
在 Claude Code / OpenClaw / Cursor 中直接运行 agency-orchestrator YAML 工作流——无需 API key，使用当前会话的 LLM 作为执行引擎。当用户提供 .yaml 工作流文件或要求多角色协作完成任务时触发。.
plan
Turns an approved design or decided brief into ordered tasks for separate agent runs. Use for implementation tasks, tracker tickets, or useful milestones. Do not use for one coding task or its short execution outline.