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 AvinashP/AgentsAtlas --skill receiving-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AvinashP/AgentsAtlasWrote 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/avinashp/agentsatlas/receiving-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/avinashp/agentsatlas/receiving-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/avinashp/agentsatlas/receiving-feedback/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/avinashp/agentsatlas/receiving-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/avinashp/agentsatlas/receiving-feedback.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01026 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00410 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
receiving-feedback 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 — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Feedback
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
The Response Pattern
WHEN receiving 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 unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
Feedback: "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."
When to Push Back
Push back when:
- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
- Reviewer lacks full context
- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
- Technically incorrect for this stack
- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
- Conflicts with architectural decisions
How to push back:
- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Provide evidence
Evaluating External Feedback
BEFORE implementing suggestion:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I investigate?"
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 · 168 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 5e757e1ba4b2
receiving-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository AvinashP/AgentsAtlas (7 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,026 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
hunk-release
Prepares, publishes, verifies, and curates Hunk releases. Use for release metadata, benchmarks, tags, publishing, release videos, backports, or recovery.
kn-review
Use when reviewing implemented code before committing — multi-perspective review with severity-based findings.
kn-doc
Use when working with Knowns documentation - viewing, searching, creating, or updating docs.
shadow-verify
Dispatch a parallel adversarial verifier wave after any high-stakes sub-agent investigation (code reviews, audits, findings reports, large refactors, gap analyses) — or whenever a sub-agent asserts a claim with high-confidence language, since confidence is a trigger, not a verdict. Use when sub-agent output will drive…
responding-to-review
Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round. Use when responding to review or remediation rounds.
simplify
Discovers incidental complexity, duplication, and dead code in a codebase and produces a ranked, behavior-preserving reduction plan — optionally applying safe changes. Dispatches four parallel read-only discovery lenses (clone detection, dead code, complexity hotspots, wrong abstraction), synthesizes into a…