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/mateaix/mateclaw/requesting-code-reviewnpx skills add mateaix/mateclaw --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mateaix/mateclawWhat 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 | $0.00020 | $0.02079 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01040 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00416 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00208 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
os.system(f"ls {user_input}") Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- requesting-code-review — 88% identical, 20 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 281 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-Commit Code Verification
Automated verification pipeline before code lands. Static scans, baseline-aware quality gates, an independent reviewer subagent, and an auto-fix loop.
Core principle: No agent should verify its own work. Fresh context finds what you miss.
When to Use
- After implementing a feature or bug fix, before
git commitorgit push - When user says "commit", "push", "ship", "done", "verify", or "review before merge"
- After completing a task with 2+ file edits in a git repo
- After each task in subagent-driven-development (the two-stage review)
Skip for: documentation-only changes, pure config tweaks, or when user says "skip verification".
This skill vs github-code-review: This skill verifies YOUR changes before committing.
github-code-review reviews OTHER people's PRs on GitHub with inline comments.
Step 1 — Get the diff
git diff --cached
If empty, try git diff then git diff HEAD~1 HEAD.
If git diff --cached is empty but git diff shows changes, tell the user to
git add <files> first. If still empty, run git status — nothing to verify.
If the diff exceeds 15,000 characters, split by file:
git diff --name-only
git diff HEAD -- specific_file.py
Step 2 — Static security scan
Scan added lines only. Any match is a security concern fed into Step 5.
# Hardcoded secrets
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -iE "(api_key|secret|password|token|passwd)\s*=\s*['\"][^'\"]{6,}['\"]"
# Shell injection
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "os\.system\(|subprocess.*shell=True"
# Dangerous eval/exec
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "\beval\(|\bexec\("
# Unsafe deserialization
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "pickle\.loads?\("
# SQL injection (string formatting in queries)
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "execute\(f\"|\.format\(.*SELECT|\.format\(.*INSERT"
Step 3 — Baseline tests and linting
Detect the project language and run the appropriate tools. Capture the failure count BEFORE your changes as baseline_failures (stash changes, run, pop). Only NEW failures introduced by your changes block the commit.
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 · 281 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A bdfa7d4edc17
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mateaix/mateclaw (1,061 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,079 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
make-skill
Use this skill when sedimenting a session into a reusable workspace skill. Triggers when the user wants to turn the current conversation, workflow, or troubleshooting path into a SKILL.md. Phrases like 'turn this into a skill', 'remember how I did X', 'save this workflow', 'make a skill from this', and any /make-skill…
make-skill
用于把当前会话沉淀为可复用的 workspace skill。当用户希望把当前对话、工作流或排错路径写成 SKILL.md 时触发。触发表达包括「把这个变成 skill」「记住我是怎么做 X 的」「保存这个工作流」「make a skill from this」以及任何 /make-skill 调用。.
terraform-skill
Use when working with Terraform or OpenTofu - creating modules, writing tests (native test framework, Terratest), setting up CI/CD pipelines, reviewing configurations, choosing between testing approaches, debugging state issues, implementing security scanning (trivy, checkov), or making infrastructure-as-code…
docx
Use this skill whenever the user wants to create, read, edit, or manipulate Word documents (.docx files). Triggers include: any mention of "Word doc", "word document", ".docx", or requests to produce professional documents with formatting like tables of contents, headings, page numbers, or letterheads. Also use when…
docx
当用户需要创建、读取、编辑或处理 Word 文档（.docx）时，使用此技能。触发场景包括提到“Word 文档”、“.docx”，或要求生成带目录、标题、页码、信头等格式的专业文档；也包括提取或重组 .docx 内容、插入或替换图片、在 Word 文件中查找替换、处理修订或批注，以及将内容整理为正式 Word 文档。如果用户要求生成“报告”“备忘录”“信函”“模板”等 Word / .docx 交付物，也应使用此技能。不要用于 PDF、电子表格、Google Docs，或与文档生成无关的一般编程任务。.
multi_agent_collaboration
Use this skill when another agent's expertise or context is needed, or when the user explicitly asks to involve another agent. First list agents, then use qwenpaw agents chat for two-way communication with replies.