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 artk0de/TeaRAGs-MCP --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/artk0de/TeaRAGs-MCPWrote 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/artk0de/tearags-mcp/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/artk0de/tearags-mcp/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/artk0de/tearags-mcp/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/artk0de/tearags-mcp/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/artk0de/tearags-mcp/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 | $0.00150 | $0.03025 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00075 | $0.01512 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00605 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00302 |
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 9d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 263 lines · 150 tokens per session scan A 42f8de06a263
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository artk0de/TeaRAGs-MCP (11 stars, last pushed 24d ago), with no licence file. It adds 150 tokens to every session and 3,025 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
ch015-verifier
Run CH015 adversarial verification workflows to independently validate security reports, recheck file-line evidence, find false positives, severity errors, missed findings, and dependencies.
intelligence-review-skills
Audit the intelligence layer for duplication, drift, size, hardcoded paths and framing.
holdout-validation
Cross-reference agent self-review claims against actual file state using hidden holdout scenarios, producing mapped P1/P2/P3 findings that reference visible acceptance criteria only. Use when verifying implementation completeness after self-review in start (Phase 4 VERIFY), address (convergence check), or review…
team-coordination
Coordinate agent teams for adversarial review (paired skeptic/verifier per facet, challenge round with disposition vocabulary, consolidated findings with confidence) or parallel implementation (task sizing 5-6 per teammate, non-overlapping files). Enforces independent analysis before shared conclusions. Reference only…
code-review-methodology
Conduct two-stage code review: Stage 1 verifies spec compliance (criterion-to-code mapping), Stage 2 evaluates security, correctness, performance, and maintainability across 6 parallel facets with P1/P2/P3 synthesis and deduplication by file:line. Use when reviewing code changes or pull requests. This skill MUST be…
ch015-pentest
Run CH015 penetration testing workflows for attacker-minded source-code review, exploit scenarios, POC generation, dry-run or live verification, and security findings.