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 agentmods add skills/backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkit/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkit --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkitWrote 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/backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkit/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkit/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkit/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00038 | $0.01471 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00736 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00147 |
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 3d 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.
This is a copy
81% identical to receiving-code-review — 79 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Reception
Overview
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 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:
- "You're absolutely right!" (performative agreement)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "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:
The user: "Fix 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 the User
- Trusted - implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement
- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
From External Reviewers
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. 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/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with the user's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with the user first
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 219 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 223e8ba2b2df
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository backspace-shmackspace/claude-devkit (15 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,471 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 79 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
create-modal
Create declarative modals using the modal library API. Covers modal types (confirm, input, select, form), sections (Text, Buttons, Input, Textarea, Checkbox, List, Combo, When, Custom), rendering with OverlayModal, and keyboard/mouse handling. Use when adding modals or dialogs to the application.
merge-strategy
Git merge strategies, conflict resolution approaches, merge vs rebase recommendations, and branch integration patterns in sidecar. Covers pull strategy menu, direct merge workflow, squash merge, commit message templates, configurable defaults, and protected branches. Use when working on git merge features or making…
worktree-switching
Git worktree support in sidecar: worktree detection, switching between worktrees, worktree state management, and plugin reinitialization. Covers the full lifecycle of worktree context switching including registry reinit, per-worktree state persistence, deleted worktree detection and fallback. Use when working on git…
autoprompt
Explicit-only useful-first orchestration. Invoke /autoprompt to turn a mission into one executable roadmap, build dependency-safe lanes, and verify the result with independent reviewers. Never infer invocation from ordinary requests. Never resume from leftover artifacts without an explicit resume instruction.
autoprompt
Explicit-only useful-first orchestration. Invoke /autoprompt to turn a mission into one executable roadmap, build dependency-safe lanes, and verify the result with independent reviewers. Never infer invocation from ordinary requests. Never resume from leftover artifacts without an explicit resume instruction.
openlore-brainstorm
Transform a feature idea into an annotated story using a Domain Sketch or Constrained Option Tree. Use when asked to brainstorm, explore, or shape a feature before implementation.