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/mrclrchtr/supi/code-reviewnpx skills add mrclrchtr/supi --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mrclrchtr/supiWrote 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/mrclrchtr/supi/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mrclrchtr/supi/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00094 | $0.01640 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00047 | $0.00820 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
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 3d 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.
This is a copy
83% identical to code-review — 67 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
For work-in-progress with no commit yet, the fixed point is HEAD and the
reviewed change is the working tree. The diff command is git diff HEAD; the
three-dot form is empty for uncommitted changes. When the Review Engine runs
the review, express the target as
target: { workingTree: { from: HEAD } }.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 101 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 3fd8adf8938f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mrclrchtr/supi (79 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 1,640 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to code-review, differing in 67 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
aider-delegate
Delegate a coding task to Aider (aider) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Aider - phrasings like "have Aider do X", "delegate this to aider", "run it through Aider", or "use Aider to implement/fix/refactor" - or wants…
codex-delegate
Delegate a coding task to the OpenAI Codex CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Codex — phrasings like "have Codex do X", "delegate this to Codex", "run it through Codex", or "use Codex to implement/fix/refactor" …
commandcode-delegate
Delegate a coding task to the Command Code CLI (cmd) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Command Code — phrasings like "have Command Code do X", "delegate this to commandcode", "run it through cmd", or "use Command Code…
delegate-setup
Configure delegation fleet lanes: which implementer CLI handles which kind of work, with optional model and effort (or variant) dials. Discovers installed CLIs, proposes a lane map for user approval, and writes global or project config only after explicit yes. Use when the user asks to set up, configure, or…
opencode-delegate
Delegate a coding task to the OpenCode CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to OpenCode — phrasings like "have OpenCode do X", "delegate this to OpenCode", "run it through OpenCode", or "use OpenCode to…
warp-delegate
Delegate a coding task to the Warp Agent CLI (oz) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Warp - phrasings like "have Warp implement X", "delegate this to the Warp CLI", "run it through Warp", "use oz to…