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 Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agents --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agentsWrote 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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00051 | $0.01742 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00697 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00348 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00174 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 227 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Overview
Comprehensive code review against the original plan, coding standards, and learned project patterns. This skill dispatches a dedicated code-reviewer agent for thorough analysis, ensuring every change is evidence-based, plan-aligned, and convention-aware before it reaches the main branch.
Announce at start: "I'm using the code-review skill to review the implementation."
Phase 1: Gather Context
Goal: Identify what changed, what the plan required, and what conventions apply.
Actions
- Retrieve the changes to review:
git diff HEAD~N..HEAD # or specific commit range
git log --oneline HEAD~N..HEAD # what was done
- Locate the plan document:
ls docs/plans/*.md | tail -1
-
Load project conventions from
memory/learned-patterns.md -
Identify:
- What files were changed
- What the plan/spec required
- What conventions apply
STOP — Do NOT proceed to Phase 2 until:
- All changed files are identified
- The plan or spec requirements are loaded
- Relevant conventions from memory are loaded
- You can state what was supposed to be built
Phase 2: Dispatch Code Reviewer
Goal: Send structured review request to the code-reviewer agent.
Review Prompt Template
Review the following changes against:
1. Plan: [plan document or requirements]
2. Conventions: [learned patterns from memory]
3. Standards: [CLAUDE.md rules]
Changes:
[git diff output or file list]
Check for:
- Plan alignment (did we build what was specified?)
- Code quality (DRY, YAGNI, naming, structure)
- Error handling (edge cases, failure modes)
- Security (injection, XSS, auth issues)
- Test coverage (are changes tested?)
- Performance (obvious bottlenecks)
- Documentation (are public APIs documented?)
STOP — Do NOT proceed to Phase 3 until:
- Review request has been dispatched
- Reviewer agent has returned findings
Phase 3: Categorize and Resolve Issues
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 · 227 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A abd7eadc4025
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agents (3 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,742 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
git-workflow-and-versioning
Structures git workflow practices. Use when making any code change. Use when committing, branching, resolving conflicts, splitting uncommitted work in a messy working tree into clean atomic commits, opening or reviewing a pull request (PR), pushing to a remote, or when you need to organize work across multiple…
chinese-commit-conventions
A Chinese-language guide to Conventional Commits, a format for writing consistent Git commit messages, plus related changelog, commit-checking, and commit-helper configuration.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
antfu-create-pr
Create a reviewable GitHub pull request from the current branch with a Conventional Commits title, a concise evidence-based body, and before/after screenshots for UI changes. Use when asked to open, create, publish, or prepare a PR.
git-workflow
Trunk-based development with atomic commits, clean history, and meaningful commit messages. Every commit should be deployable.
git-workflow
Git best practices, branching strategies, commit conventions, and code review patterns.