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 Vimalk0703/shipworthy --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Vimalk0703/shipworthyWrote 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/vimalk0703/shipworthy/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/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/vimalk0703/shipworthy/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/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 | $0.00030 | $0.00389 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00156 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00078 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00039 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Requesting Code Review
When to Request
- After completing all tasks in a plan
- Before creating a pull request
- After significant refactoring
- When unsure about an approach
How to Request
1. Determine the Review Scope
Use git to identify what changed:
git diff main...HEAD --stat # files changed
git log main..HEAD --oneline # commits to review
2. Dispatch the Code Reviewer Agent
Launch the code-reviewer agent with:
- The commit range or diff to review
- The architecture.md constraints
- The original plan/spec (if applicable)
- Specific concerns you want addressed
3. Review Checklist
The code reviewer evaluates:
- Plan alignment — does the code match the spec?
- Architecture compliance — does it follow Mandatory Rules?
- Code quality — naming, structure, readability
- Error handling — proper patterns, no silent failures
- Security — input validation, auth checks, no secrets
- Testing — coverage, meaningful assertions, edge cases
- Performance — no obvious bottlenecks, proper queries
- Type safety — no
any, proper types, null handling
4. Issue Severity
Issues are flagged as:
- Critical — must fix before merge (bugs, security issues, broken tests)
- Important — should fix (architecture violations, missing tests)
- Suggestion — nice to have (naming improvements, refactoring ideas)
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 · 52 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 532da3cd2b5f
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Vimalk0703/shipworthy (6 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 389 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-comment-discipline
Apply whenever writing or editing source code in any core's build agent (backend-eng, ui-builder, or equivalent). Governs when a comment belongs at all and what it may say. Default is no comment; a comment is only for the non-obvious. Never restates what the code does, never narrates the task, fix, or conversation…
dare-review
Audita uma task DARE implementada — cruza a spec com o código real para detectar stubs, mocks fora de testes, funções vazias, TODOs e validar critério-a-critério se a implementação satisfaz o que a spec prometeu. Use antes de marcar uma task como DONE, ou quando o dev pedir revisão manual. Combina análise estática…
code-review
Reviews code following team development standards. Use when reviewing code, checking PRs, or before merging.
tech-debt
Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.