Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojonpx agentmods add skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/receiving-code-reviewWrote 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/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/receiving-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/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00014 | $0.01175 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00588 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
receiving-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 10d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review Skill
Processes every review comment — human, agent, or CI — until the change is approved. Each comment is categorized, addressed, verified, and answered. Does NOT silently ignore comments and does NOT amend the original commit during active review.
When to Use
- Review comments received on a pull request.
- User provides corrections or improvement suggestions.
- The
requesting-code-reviewskill flagged issues. - CI/CD checks fail with actionable feedback.
- A sub-agent's review output needs to be addressed.
Prerequisites
- The list of comments (PR thread, CI log, or chat).
- The
view,edit,grep, andpowershellCopilot tools. gitfor new commits andghfor PR threads (when relevant).- A green baseline test run.
How to Run
1. Read every comment. Categorize by action.
2. For each comment: fix, verify, respond, mark resolved.
3. Re-run the full test suite after all fixes.
4. Re-self-review with the `requesting-code-review` skill.
5. Update `tasks/todo.md` and (if pattern recurring) `tasks/lessons.md`.
6. Request re-review with a short summary.
Quick Reference
| Category | Action |
|---|---|
| Agree — will fix | Fix it. No debate. |
| Agree — won't fix now | Log as follow-up with reason |
| Disagree — with evidence | Respond with reasoning and evidence |
| Need clarification | Ask one focused follow-up |
| Already addressed | Link to the commit / line |
| Phase | Tool |
|---|---|
| Read comments | gh pr view / PR UI |
| Apply fix | edit |
| Verify fix | powershell → test runner |
| Respond | gh pr comment / PR UI |
| Track resolution | Checklist in tasks/todo.md |
Procedure
Step 1: Acknowledge and Categorize
Read every comment. Categorize each using the table above. Track them in tasks/todo.md as a Review Feedback section:
### Review Feedback (Round 1)
- [ ] Comment #1: missing error handling — agree, will fix
- [ ] Comment #2: rename for clarity — agree, will fix
- [ ] Comment #3: add pagination — agree, follow-up (out of scope)
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 140 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A ada1c43762f2
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository andreaswasita/copilot-agents-dojo (52 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,175 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Use when a green diff needs adversarial judgment in the rsc SDD chain, between verify and ship — give a review keyed to the spec/plan/constitution in 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/, or receive one and verify each comment before agreeing. NOT running lint/type/tests (that is verify), NOT the spec-less standalone pass (that is…
review-work
Quality gate: verify each acceptance criterion of a completed task/work unit, run quality checks, and create follow-up tasks for gaps. Use before merging or to audit delivered work. Invoked as /agiflow:review-work . Uses getworkunit, gettask, updatetask, createtask, createtaskcomment.
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.
reflecting-findings
Use when a reflection package hands you another agent's review findings to verify (before they become a fix request): you are the REFLECTOR, an independent skeptic. Judge each finding against the real code and settle it with reflectfinding — kept or refuted.
code-review
Use to judge a concrete diff, branch, or GitHub PR on its own merits with no rsc-SDD spec/plan chain to key off — the spec-less giving pass behind /code-review: only findings you can defend, one verdict, read-only unless --comment or --fix. NOT the SDD gate keyed to 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ that also processes incoming…
代码审查员
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, security, maintainability, performance, and test coverage.