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 yinqd3/workbuddy-skills --skill requesting-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yinqd3/workbuddy-skillsWrote 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/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/requesting-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/requesting-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/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 | $0.00048 | $0.00611 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00305 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00061 |
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 8d 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
请求代码审查
概述
代码变更完成后请求代码审查。使用 WorkBuddy Agent 工具派发审查子代理。
开始时声明： "我将用 requesting-code-review 技能审查代码变更。"
审查流程
代码变更 → 规范审查子代理 → 代码质量审查子代理 → 汇总报告 → 修复 → 重新审查
步骤 1：准备审查上下文
# 获取变更范围
git diff --stat <base>..<head>
git diff <base>..<head>
步骤 2：派发规范审查子代理
使用 Agent 工具派发 general-purpose 子代理：
你是做规范合规审查的子代理。只审查实现是否匹配计划中的规格要求。
计划文件: [路径]
GIT 范围: [base..head]
审查:
- 每个规格要求都有实现吗？
- 实现的行为和规格描述一致吗？
- 有规格没要求但实现了的功能吗？（YAGNI 违反）
报告:
- PASS 或 FAIL
- 任何规格遗漏或偏差
- 不要评论代码风格或质量
步骤 3：派发代码质量审查子代理
你是做代码质量审查的子代理。
GIT 范围: [base..head]
描述: [变更概述]
审查:
- DRY 违反（重复代码）
- 死代码（永远不会执行的代码）
- YAGNI 违反（过度工程）
- 命名问题
- 缺少错误处理
- 测试覆盖不足
严重程度: 严重 / 重要 / 次要
报告: 批准，或按严重程度列出问题。
步骤 4：汇总结果
将两个审查报告汇总给用户，标注严重程度和处理建议。
步骤 5：修复与重新审查
- 严重/重要问题必须修复
- 修复后重新审查变更部分
- 全部通过后标记审查完成
审查严重程度
| 严重程度 | 行动 |
|---|---|
| 严重 | 阻塞合并，必须修复 |
| 重要 | 应该修复，强烈建议 |
| 次要 | 可以改进，不阻塞 |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 87 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 21f8bebe5f9b
requesting-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository yinqd3/workbuddy-skills (6 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 611 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
plannotator
Reference for using the Plannotator CLI: plan review, code review, annotating files, URLs, folders, and running local apps, annotating the last assistant message, browsing archived plan decisions, and exporting or sharing Guided Reviews. Invoke when asked to use Plannotator for anything not covered by a more specific…
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
agent-design-best-practices
Best practices for designing Claude Code agent files (.claude/agents/.md). This skill should be used when writing or reviewing agent markdown files to ensure proper design with focused domains, correct tool access, reusable definitions, and separation of capabilities from lifecycle. Combines Anthropic's official…