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 strigov/superpowers-strigov-ver --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/strigov/superpowers-strigov-verWrote 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/strigov/superpowers-strigov-ver/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/strigov/superpowers-strigov-ver/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/strigov/superpowers-strigov-ver/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 | $0.01607 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00804 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00321 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00161 |
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 7d 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 — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requesting Code Review
Dispatch an Opus subagent to review code changes. 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. Code review is judgment work — always run it on Opus.
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=<the SHA you recorded before the task started> # or: $(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
Never HEAD~1 as BASE for multi-commit work — it silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task. If you did not record the task's starting SHA, use the merge-base with the mainline, not a fixed number of parents.
Optionally, pre-build a review package so the reviewer reads one file instead of re-running git. Resolve the script the same way codex-invocation resolves $DISPATCH:
PKG="$(command -v review-package || true)"
[ -z "$PKG" ] && PKG="$(ls -1d ~/.claude/plugins/cache/strigov-cc-plugins/superpowers-strigov-ver/*/bin/review-package 2>/dev/null | sort -rV | head -1)"
[ -z "$PKG" ] && PKG="$(pwd)/bin/review-package"
"$PKG" "$BASE_SHA" "$HEAD_SHA" # prints: wrote <path>: N commit(s), M bytes
Pass the printed path as {DIFF_FILE}. Only the wrote ... line enters your context — never read the package yourself.
2. Dispatch Opus subagent:
Read the template at ./code-reviewer.md, fill the placeholders, then dispatch:
Agent(
subagent_type="general-purpose",
model="opus",
description="Code review: <short scope>",
prompt=<filled template>
)
Placeholders:
{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}- What you just built{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}- What it should do{BASE_SHA}- Starting commit{HEAD_SHA}- Ending commit{DIFF_FILE}- Review package path printed byreview-package(optional; fill withnoneif you didn't build one — the reviewer then fetches the diff itself){DESCRIPTION}- Brief summary
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 160 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A ac894d0f23ad
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository strigov/superpowers-strigov-ver (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 1,607 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…