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 procoders/superpowers-v --skill pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/procoders/superpowers-vWrote 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/procoders/superpowers-v/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/procoders/superpowers-v/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/procoders/superpowers-v/pr-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/procoders/superpowers-v/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/procoders/superpowers-v/pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 103 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 215 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00112 | $0.07517 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.03007 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01503 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00752 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 — 377 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review — Two-Axis, Stack-Agnostic Deep Code Review
Philosophy
The purpose of reviewing a change is to build shared understanding of what the change is trying to do, then systematically hunt for the bugs and edge cases that intent reveals. Every diff carries implicit assumptions, unstated invariants, and ambiguous decisions. The review walks through them one by one.
When neither the codebase nor the user can resolve a question deterministically — when it's a real unknown about author intent or non-local context — that question itself becomes a review comment for the author to answer. The goal is zero unexamined assumptions before the review is finalized.
The two review axes (Standards ⊥ Spec)
The diff is checked along two deliberately separate axes by parallel, context-isolated sub-agents (Phase 3.5):
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented conventions (discovered in Phase 0)?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating spec / issue / story / PRD?
A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.
The two axes run as separate sub-agents so neither pollutes the other's context, and their findings are reported side by side, never merged or reranked across axes — separation stops one axis from masking the other.
Prime Directives
- Review only — never modify code. No edits, fixes, commits, pushes, or merges. If the user asks for a fix mid-review, stop and confirm they want to leave the review before touching code.
- Exhaust the codebase before asking. Every question to the user (or the author) must include an
Already checked:line citing what you grepped/read and why it didn't answer it. If you can't write that line, you haven't explored enough. See references/exploration-checklist.md. - Use AskUserQuestion for every judgment question. Never plain-text a question. Lead with your
recommendation (first option,
(Recommended)). Batch up to 4 same-domain questions per call. When there is no user to ask — a subagent,claude -p, a workflow step — do not plain-text the question to nobody: resolve it from the code, or promote it to an Open Question for the author, per the interactivity table in Inputs & VCS Auto-Detection. - Don't surface what the code already answers. Anti-pattern: asking something that 30 seconds of
grepresolves. Reserve user questions for genuine judgment calls and author-intent for genuine non-local unknowns. - Stay concrete. Anchor every question and finding to a specific
file:lineand a specific failure mode. - Promote real unknowns to review comments. When neither code nor user can answer, record as an Open Question for the Author (defaults to post =
[x]). - Verdict and confidence are mandatory. Every finding gets both before the user sees the triage table.
What ships with it
4 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +106 lines · +16 tokens per session afee60e34490
- 1mo ago First seen · 271 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A e85674955145
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository procoders/superpowers-v (41 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 7,517 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
auditing-upstream-drift
Use when checking if beads-superpowers is outdated, before a plugin release, or when auditing for missing capabilities — covers upstream drift, test execution, documentation, plugin health, and content integrity.
parallel-pr-scope-overlap-tiebreaker-delta-check
Before applying a handoff prompt's tiebreaker default ("merge the first-mover", "the clean-against-main one", "the one with reviewer APPROVE") to pick a winner between two parallel PRs that implemented the SAME scope, run gh pr diff on BOTH and audit for substantive deltas. Use when: (1) a session prompt or handoff…
pr-from-stale-branch-silently-reverts-newer-main-files
Trap: merging a PR whose branch carries an OLD TREE silently DELETES (reverts) files that landed on main after that tree was built — with NO merge conflict to warn you, because a deletion your own commit records is not a conflict. Use when: (1) about to gh pr create or squash-merge from a long-lived / earlier-branched…
batch-member-cites-a-path-only-a-non-member-adds
You wrote something correct that the default reader cannot reach: a batch member citing a path only a NON-member adds, or a rule, ruling or ledger sitting on an unlanded branch.
code-review-subagent-fabricates-specifics-to-inflate-severity
When a code-review subagent (voltagent-qa-sec, opus-tier reviewer, code-reviewer, etc.) reports a HIGH or BLOCKING severity finding, verify any SPECIFIC EVIDENCE the reviewer cites (line numbers, call counts, exact function/symbol names, file paths beyond the obvious diff) BEFORE treating the severity as actionable.…
pr-plan-bucket-triage-before-sizing
Before writing detailed pull request plans against a codebase you have not audited, triage it by bucket so sizes rest on findings rather than assumptions.