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.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 | $0.00051 | $0.01742 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00871 |
| Sonnet 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 4d 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.
- 4d 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 (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,742 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
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, opening or reviewing a pull request (PR), pushing to a remote, or when you need to organize work across multiple parallel streams. Use when cutting a release, choosing a semantic version bump…
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.
git-workflow
Git best practices, branching strategies, commit conventions, and code review patterns.
pm-review
Review local git diff with reasoning + snippets; cross-check; dispose findings into the rules library.
pr-review
Reviews a GitHub pull request and posts inline comments plus one consolidated summary, adapting to any codebase by discovering the project's own test runner, requirement specs, and architecture conventions before running six specialized review agents in parallel. Stack-agnostic across language and framework; targets…