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 yimwoo/hotl-plugin --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yimwoo/hotl-pluginWrote 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/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/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/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yimwoo/hotl-plugin/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 | $0.00031 | $0.00834 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00334 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00083 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
HOTL Requesting Code Review
Lifecycle
Executors invoke requesting-code-review at defined checkpoints. This skill dispatches the code-reviewer agent with structured context. Returned findings are handled by receiving-code-review.
Precondition
Only request review when the checkpoint work is in a reviewable state and its planned verification has completed. Do not request review for code that has failing required verification unless the purpose of the review is to diagnose the failure.
When to Request Review
Mandatory Triggers
- executing-plans: After each 3-step batch boundary
- subagent-execution: After meaningful delegated implementation batches (3+ completed implementation steps, or cross-module change, or high-risk/user-facing/shared-infra change)
- All executors: Before final completion (claiming done, merging, or creating a PR)
Conditional Triggers
- loop-execution: At intermediate gates only when the change is high-risk, cross-module, or feature-scale. Always at final completion.
- Ad-hoc development: Before merge to main. Optionally when stuck or before a large refactor.
When NOT to Request
- After trivial single-step changes (typo, config value, import fix)
- Mid-loop iterations that haven't reached a gate
- When the same code was already reviewed and hasn't changed since
- Do not request a second full review when a scoped follow-up review is enough
Review Base (Deterministic)
The review base defines the git range for the reviewer. Executors record this before starting each reviewable batch.
- Batch review:
git rev-parse HEADrecorded by the executor before starting the batch - Final review: Branch point or last recorded review base, whichever is more recent. A final review is required unless the most recent review already covers all current changes and no code changed afterward.
- Follow-up review:
HEADimmediately before the fix. Re-review only the changed scope unless the fix affects shared architecture, risk level, or multiple modules.
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 · 92 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 5b4d8884bb35
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository yimwoo/hotl-plugin (27 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 834 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
git-review
Review a repository diff for accidental changes, secrets, generated files, dependency and migration impact, tests, documentation, and scope before completion.
autofix-pr
Watch a pull request and fix it from a worktree of its own - CI failures, review feedback from trusted authors and merge conflicts are fixed, pushed to the PR branch and answered on the PR under the user's git and gh identity. Usage - /autofix-pr [ | ] [--once] [--every ] [--no-reply] [--yes] [instructions]…
triage
Gatekeep and review GitHub issues and pull requests for Qwen Code maintainers. Use for GitHub Action issue triage, PR admission checks, product-direction review, KISS-focused PR review, and staged bilingual GitHub comments.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.