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 pengzhangzhi/superpowers-ml --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pengzhangzhi/superpowers-mlWrote 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/pengzhangzhi/superpowers-ml/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pengzhangzhi/superpowers-ml/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pengzhangzhi/superpowers-ml/requesting-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 5.1 | $0.00022 | $0.00651 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00326 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
77% identical to requesting-code-review — 24 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
Core principle: Review early, review often.
When to Request Review
Mandatory:
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
Optional but valuable:
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
How to Request
1. Get git SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:
Use Task tool with general-purpose type, fill template at code-reviewer.md
Placeholders:
{DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary of what you built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit
3. Act on feedback:
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
Example
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
[Subagent returns]:
Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
Issues:
Important: Missing progress indicators
Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
Assessment: Ready to proceed
You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]
Integration with Workflows
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 104 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 5a3a44a36678
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository pengzhangzhi/superpowers-ml (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 651 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 77% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 24 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
auto-review-loop
Autonomous multi-round research review loop. In Copilot CLI it defaults to the native complementary rubber-duck subagent with host-event model evidence; elsewhere it uses Codex, while explicit external reviewer overrides remain available. Implements fixes and re-reviews until a policy-approved positive assessment or…
code-review
Perform comprehensive code reviews focusing on best practices, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and maintainability.
auto-review-loop-minimax
Autonomous multi-round research review loop using MiniMax API. Use when you want to use MiniMax instead of Codex MCP for external review. Trigger with "auto review loop minimax" or "minimax review".
retentioneering-contributing
Help the user turn their Retentioneering ideas, friction reports, bug findings, or feature needs into high-quality upstream contributions: from capturing and validating the idea, through minimal reproductions and issue drafts, to preparing, testing, and submitting a pull request that follows this repository's…
deep-review
Parallel competency-based code review. Launches independent Agent reviewers per competency (security, performance, architecture, database, concurrency, error-handling, frontend, testing), each with a focused checklist and isolated context. Synthesizes findings into unified report with FIX/DEFER/ACCEPT triage. Use…
architecture-quality
Keep web applications, APIs and services readable as they grow: choose feature or domain seams, assign state ownership, enforce dependency direction, keep adapters thin, and verify file shape. Use when starting or extending a web app, backend, frontend, API or multi-page product; when a change makes a module hard to…