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 bostonaholic/rpikit --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bostonaholic/rpikitWrote 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/bostonaholic/rpikit/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/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/bostonaholic/rpikit/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00035 | $0.01428 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00714 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00286 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00143 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 271 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Verify feedback before implementing. No performative agreement.
Purpose
Code review feedback requires rigorous evaluation, not automatic acceptance. Reviewers may lack context, make incorrect suggestions, or propose changes that conflict with project requirements. This skill enforces verification before implementation.
The Iron Law
Evaluate suggestions rigorously before implementing.
Not all feedback is correct. Not all suggestions improve the code. Your job is to verify, not to agree performatively.
Prohibited Responses
Never respond with:
- "You're absolutely right!"
- "Great catch!"
- "Thanks for catching that!"
- "Of course, I should have seen that!"
- Any excessive praise or validation
These are performative, not technical. They waste time and signal you're not actually evaluating the feedback.
The Response Pattern
For each piece of feedback, complete these steps:
Step 1: Read Completely
Read the entire feedback before reacting:
- Full comment, not just the first line
- Any linked context or references
- The specific code being discussed
Step 2: Restate Requirements
Restate what the reviewer is asking for:
"The feedback requests: [restatement in your own words]"
If you can't restate it clearly, you don't understand it.
Step 3: Verify Against Codebase
Check whether the suggestion is correct for THIS codebase:
Questions to answer:
- Is the reviewer's assumption about the code correct?
- Does this file/function work the way they think?
- Are there constraints they might not know about?
Step 4: Assess Technical Soundness
Evaluate whether the suggestion is technically sound:
Consider:
- Will this change break existing functionality?
- Does it align with project patterns?
- Is the suggested approach better than alternatives?
- What are the trade-offs?
Step 5: Respond Appropriately
If feedback is valid: Implement it, then respond factually.
"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
"Implemented. Added null check at line 45."
"Done. Extracted helper function as suggested."
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 · 271 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 58ae4d99da87
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/rpikit (20 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,428 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
cross-review
Verify an implementer's diff with an INDEPENDENT, different-vendor sub-agent (diff plus contract only); turn blocking issues into fix-tasks and loop until clean.
cocoreview
CocoReview — structured code review with six-severity findings vocabulary, progressive disclosure architecture, and universal anti-pattern baseline. Invoked via $review [file] [--complexity] [--security] [--architecture] [--language ].
sentinel
CocoSentinel — eight-dimension artifact quality gate. Dimension G evidence pre-gate runs first (deterministic, .
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
lean-review
CocoLean diff-scoped over-engineering audit — scans uncommitted git diff and applies five classification tags (delete/stdlib/native/yagni/shrink) to identify unnecessary surface area before commit.
sentinel-approve
CocoSentinel approval — records SHA-bound approval for a previously evaluated artifact. Invoked via $sentinel --approve [file]. Voids automatically if the artifact is modified after approval.