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 ArtemioPadilla/agent-triforce --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArtemioPadilla/agent-triforceWrote 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/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/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/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/receiving-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 | $0.00045 | $0.01026 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00513 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00103 |
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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Handle feedback on: $ARGUMENTS
The Response Pattern
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
Forbidden Responses
NEVER say:
- "You're absolutely right!"
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!"
- "Thanks for catching that!"
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
INSTEAD:
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just start working (actions > words)
Handling Unclear Feedback
IF any item is unclear:
STOP — do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on ALL unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
Reviewer: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Source-Specific Handling
From Centinela (QA Agent)
- Trusted but verified — Centinela's findings are systematic, but verify the fix won't break something else
- Check severity — Critical findings are non-negotiable. Warnings deserve verification. Suggestions are optional.
- No performative agreement — skip to action or technical acknowledgment
From External Reviewers (PR comments, human reviewers)
BEFORE implementing:
1. Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Breaks existing functionality?
3. Reason for current implementation?
4. Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF conflicts with existing architectural decisions:
Check ADRs in docs/adr/ first, then discuss
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 · 151 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 2aedefda3204
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArtemioPadilla/agent-triforce (3 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,026 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
warden
Use before opening a PR from a quest, once the code is written. Simulates a strict code reviewer by comparing changes against reference files and documented conventions, catching convention feedback before your human reviewer does.
java-best-practices
Java coding best practices. Use when writing or reviewing Java code (17+). Covers modern features, error handling, and patterns.
link-check
Verify @file references in AIWG skills and agents against the linking contract — per-file or corpus-wide, with optional auto-fix.
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).
cost-model
Standardized cost-estimation framework for greatcto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.