requesting-code-review

requesting-code-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from math-inc/OpenGauss. It costs 28 tokens per session (1,458 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A structured process for asking another coding helper to check completed work, major features, bug fixes, or code before merging it.

In plain words
What is it for?
It helps inspect code changes for secrets, unsafe input handling, missing checks, weak error handling, duplicate code, and untested edge cases.
Why use it?
It provides a fresh review that can find security, error-handling, quality, testing, and maintainability problems.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: mentions subagents.

Good fit It helps inspect code changes for secrets, unsafe input handling, missing checks, weak error handling, duplicate code, and untested edge cases.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/math-inc/opengauss/requesting-code-review
About the project

OpenGauss is a project-scoped Lean workflow orchestrator that gives coding agents a command-line interface for managing formal proof and formalization tasks. It is used with Lean projects to coordinate agents, tooling, backend sessions, and workflows supplied by lean4-skills. The catalogue add-ons operate these Gauss-native workflows.

math-inc/OpenGauss · 1,260 stars · on GitHub

Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add math-inc/OpenGauss --skill requesting-code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/math-inc/OpenGauss

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for requesting-code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/math-inc/opengauss/requesting-code-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/math-inc/opengauss/requesting-code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/math-inc/opengauss/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/math-inc/opengauss/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for requesting-code-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/math-inc/opengauss/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/math-inc/opengauss/requesting-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 28 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,458 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00028 $0.01458
Opus 5 $0.00014 $0.00729
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00292
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00146

Measured 6d ago against content hash 923203c930fa, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

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 6d 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.

skills/software-development/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md · 270 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 270 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Requesting Code Review

Overview

Dispatch a reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. Review early, review often.

Core principle: Fresh perspective finds issues you'll miss.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

  • After each task in subagent-driven development
  • After completing a major feature
  • Before merge to main
  • After bug fixes

Optional but valuable:

  • When stuck (fresh perspective)
  • Before refactoring (baseline check)
  • After complex logic implementation
  • When touching critical code (auth, payments, data)

Never skip because:

  • "It's simple" — simple bugs compound
  • "I'm in a hurry" — reviews save time
  • "I tested it" — you have blind spots

Review Process

Step 1: Self-Review First

Before dispatching a reviewer, check yourself:

  • Code follows project conventions
  • All tests pass
  • No debug print statements left
  • No hardcoded secrets or credentials
  • Error handling in place
  • Commit messages are clear
# Run full test suite
pytest tests/ -q

# Check for debug code
search_files("print(", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
search_files("console.log", path="src/", file_glob="*.js")

# Check for TODOs
search_files("TODO|FIXME|HACK", path="src/")

Step 2: Gather Context

# Changed files
git diff --name-only HEAD~1

# Diff summary
git diff --stat HEAD~1

# Recent commits
git log --oneline -5

Step 3: Dispatch Reviewer Subagent

Use delegate_task to dispatch a focused reviewer:

delegate_task(
    goal="Review implementation for correctness and quality",
    context="""
    WHAT WAS IMPLEMENTED:
    [Brief description of the feature/fix]

    ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS:
    [From plan, issue, or user request]

    FILES CHANGED:
    - src/models/user.py (added User class)
    - src/auth/login.py (added login endpoint)
    - tests/test_auth.py (added 8 tests)

    REVIEW CHECKLIST:
    - [ ] Correctness: Does it do what it should?
    - [ ] Edge cases: Are they handled?
    - [ ] Error handling: Is it adequate?
    - [ ] Code quality: Clear names, good structure?
    - [ ] Test coverage: Are tests meaningful?
    - [ ] Security: Any vulnerabilities?
    - [ ] Performance: Any obvious issues?

    OUTPUT FORMAT:
    - Summary: [brief assessment]
    - Critical Issues: [must fix — blocks merge]
    - Important Issues: [should fix before merge]
    - Minor Issues: [nice to have]
    - Strengths: [what was done well]
    - Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES
    """,
    toolsets=['file']
)

Read the full file on GitHub · 270 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 6d ago First seen · 270 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 923203c930fa

Subscribe to this mod's changes

requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository math-inc/OpenGauss (1,260 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,458 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.