Superpowers is a software development methodology for coding agents that guides work from clarifying requirements through design, planning, implementation, testing, and review. It is for developers who want agents to follow a structured, test-focused process using composable skills and subagents.
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 skills add obra/superpowers --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/obra/superpowersWrote 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/obra/superpowers/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/obra/superpowers/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obra/superpowers/receiving-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/obra/superpowers/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obra/superpowers/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 5.1 | $0.00038 | $0.01459 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00584 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00292 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
receiving-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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 19 lines differ
- receiving-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Reception
Overview
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
The Response Pattern
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
Forbidden Responses
NEVER:
- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file violation)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
INSTEAD:
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just start working (actions > words)
Handling Unclear Feedback
IF any item is unclear:
STOP - do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Source-Specific Handling
From your human partner
- Trusted - implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement
- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
From External Reviewers
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 206 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 091df1629510
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository obra/superpowers (300,676 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,459 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
review-resolution
You MUST use this when code-review findings, PR comments, CI review output, or reviewer suggestions need technical validation before any fix or disposition, including feedback from human reviewers, subagents, GitHub, static-analysis tools, or external review systems.
verification-gate
You MUST use this when work is about to be called complete, done, fixed, ready, or mergeable - before a completion claim, a merge or pull request, a branch finish, or a handoff report.
cross-review
You MUST use this when an implementation plan or a finished implementation needs an independent review by the other agent CLI - Codex reviewing work done in Claude Code, Claude Code reviewing work done in Codex, or Antigravity (Gemini) on explicit request - whether the user asks for a cross-review or a second opinion…
review-request
You MUST use this when a completed or partially committed implementation needs an independent code review against explicit requirements, a defined task scope, and the actual Git diff, including committed and working-tree changes.
code-review-and-quality
Runs code review as a change-management process — right-sizing the diff, labeling findings by required-vs-optional severity, applying structural remedies for complexity, and resolving reviewer/author disagreements. Use when a change needs splitting before review, when review comments need severity labels, when a…
coding-standards
Cross-language code-quality heuristics -- function size, nesting depth, magic numbers, comment intent, naming -- for reviewing or writing code in any language. Use when reviewing code for maintainability, setting up lint rules, or onboarding conventions. For Go-specific idioms use go-service-idioms, for API contracts…