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 StarryCod/cogitum --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/StarryCod/cogitumWrote 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/starrycod/cogitum/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/starrycod/cogitum/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/starrycod/cogitum/requesting-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/starrycod/cogitum/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/starrycod/cogitum/requesting-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 | $0.00020 | $0.02132 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00853 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00426 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00213 |
Grade A, and why
requesting-code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
os.system(f"ls {user_input}") This is a copy
92% identical to requesting-code-review — 12 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 — 281 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-Commit Code Verification
Automated verification pipeline before code lands. Static scans, baseline-aware quality gates, an independent reviewer subagent, and an auto-fix loop.
Core principle: No agent should verify its own work. Fresh context finds what you miss.
When to Use
- After implementing a feature or bug fix, before
git commitorgit push - When user says "commit", "push", "ship", "done", "verify", or "review before merge"
- After completing a task with 2+ file edits in a git repo
- After each task in subagent-driven-development (the two-stage review)
Skip for: documentation-only changes, pure config tweaks, or when user says "skip verification".
This skill vs github-code-review: This skill verifies YOUR changes before committing.
github-code-review reviews OTHER people's PRs on GitHub with inline comments.
Step 1 — Get the diff
git diff --cached
If empty, try git diff then git diff HEAD~1 HEAD.
If git diff --cached is empty but git diff shows changes, tell the user to
git add <files> first. If still empty, run git status — nothing to verify.
If the diff exceeds 15,000 characters, split by file:
git diff --name-only
git diff HEAD -- specific_file.py
Step 2 — Static security scan
Scan added lines only. Any match is a security concern fed into Step 5.
# Hardcoded secrets
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -iE "(api_key|secret|password|token|passwd)\s*=\s*['\"][^'\"]{6,}['\"]"
# Shell injection
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "os\.system\(|subprocess.*shell=True"
# Dangerous eval/exec
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "\beval\(|\bexec\("
# Unsafe deserialization
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "pickle\.loads?\("
# SQL injection (string formatting in queries)
git diff --cached | grep "^+" | grep -E "execute\(f\"|\.format\(.*SELECT|\.format\(.*INSERT"
Step 3 — Baseline tests and linting
Detect the project language and run the appropriate tools. Capture the failure count BEFORE your changes as baseline_failures (stash changes, run, pop). Only NEW failures introduced by your changes block the commit.
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 · 281 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A cb7e3518c3be
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository StarryCod/cogitum (12 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,132 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). It is 92% identical to requesting-code-review, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…
code-review
Review local code changes. Uses an isolated sub-agent for unbiased analysis when the main agent wrote the code; reviews directly in fresh review-only sessions. Checks correctness, conventions, performance, tests, security, and tech design compliance. Use when the user wants a code review or says "review the diff" /…
code-review
Review frontend code for best practices, bugs, and improvements. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code quality, or before committing.
pypi-release
This skill should be used when releasing tunacode-cli to PyPI. It keeps the existing local release checks, then hands the actual PyPI upload to a GitHub Actions workflow that uses the repository's PYPIAPITOKEN secret.
install-jazz-github-action
Set up Jazz as a GitHub Action for automated PR code review and on-demand /jazz PR assistance. Use when the user asks to add Jazz to CI, create a GitHub Action workflow, set up PR review automation, enable /jazz commands on PRs, or integrate Jazz with GitHub.
audit-harness
Use when auditing HARNESS.md, pre-commit hooks, pre-push hooks, architecture gates, or CI workflows for tunacode-cli. This skill treats any mismatch, skipped gate, or failing check as a critical failure and requires manual one-by-one execution rather than make targets, batch wrappers, or summary-only audits.