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 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00410 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,026 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.
opportunity-solution-tree
Build an Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) to structure product discovery — map a desired outcome to customer opportunities, possible solutions, and experiments. Based on Teresa Torres' Continuous Discovery Habits. Use when the team is unclear what to build next, when multiple opportunities compete, or before writing a…
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
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).
well-architected
6-pillar architecture review framework. Adapted from AWS Well-Architected for use by greatcto's architect agent on every non-nano ARCH document. Forces explicit answers across operational excellence, security, reliability, performance, cost, and sustainability — not just feature design.
product-economics
Does this product make money at a price someone will pay? Forces contribution margin, a price with a stated basis, and a bottom-up market size — each number labelled measured / assumed / unknown, so a guess can never be read as a calculation.