Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to auerbachb/claude-code-config. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/auerbachb/claude-code-config/main/.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/auerbachb/claude-code-configWrote 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/auerbachb/claude-code-config/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/auerbachb/claude-code-config/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/auerbachb/claude-code-config/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/auerbachb/claude-code-config/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/auerbachb/claude-code-config/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 | $0.00059 | $0.01564 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00626 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00313 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00156 |
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 2mo 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review — Judgment Layer
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. This skill guides the EVALUATE step that sits between reading a bot finding and touching any code.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Technical correctness over performative compliance.
Scope note: This file is the judgment layer. The mechanical loop — polling endpoints, batching fixes, replying to threads, resolving via GraphQL — belongs to
cr-github-review.md. Do not duplicate that loop here.
The Six-Step Response Pattern
WHEN a bot reviewer (coderabbitai[bot], cursor[bot], greptile-apps[bot],
codeant-ai[bot], graphite-app[bot]) posts a finding:
1. READ: Complete the finding without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate the requirement in your own words (or flag if unclear)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality — open the actual file
4. EVALUATE: Is this finding technically sound FOR THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned decline with evidence
6. IMPLEMENT: Only valid findings, one at a time, per cr-github-review.md
STOP before step 6 if you have not completed steps 3 and 4. Incomplete verification = incomplete review.
Step 3 — VERIFY maps to our verification step
"Check against the actual file" in step 3 is the same verification step described in cr-local-review.md. Specifically: open the file the finding references, read the surrounding context, confirm whether the code matches the reviewer's claim. Do not rely on memory or the diff alone.
Step 5 — RESPOND respects reply conventions
How you reply depends on the reviewer:
coderabbitai[bot]: Replies teach CodeRabbit's model. Use@coderabbitaiin a PR-level comment for general context; inline replies for thread-specific responses.cursor[bot](BugBot) /greptile-apps[bot]: Plain text only. Do NOT include@cursoror@greptileaiin reply comments — each mention triggers a new paid review. For the exact reply-format table see.claude/reference/greptile-reply-format.md.codeant-ai[bot]/graphite-app[bot]: Plain text inline replies.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 122 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 39f7158934dc
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository auerbachb/claude-code-config (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,564 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
skeptic
Adversarial reviewer for Bug Hunter. Challenges each behavioral finding against actual code, checks defenses, and preserves unresolved cases for independent review.
referee
Final arbiter for Bug Hunter. Independently verifies behavioral findings, resolves Skeptic challenges, and calibrates severity and confidence.
commit-security-scan
Scan code changes for security vulnerabilities using Bug Hunter-native artifacts and STRIDE context. Use whenever the user asks for PR security review, commit-diff scanning, staged-change security checks, branch-comparison security review, or pre-merge security analysis of changed code.
robin
Use whenever an agent creates, updates, reviews, or completes a GitHub pull request. Detect whether Robin is installed in the repository; when it is, automatically drive the PR through a bounded review, verified-fix, reply, thread-resolution, re-review, authorized-merge, and cleanup loop without requiring the user to…
adr
Create and manage Architecture Decision Records. Documents significant technical decisions with context, alternatives, and consequences. Also supports evaluate (assess proposals) and design (system design) modes.
deploy-checklist
Pre-deployment verification checklist. Generates customized checklists based on tech-stack with rollback triggers. Auto-invoked by /draft:upload.