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 brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrapWrote 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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/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 | $0.00024 | $0.01129 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00113 |
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 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.
This is a copy
78% identical to receiving-code-review — 100 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 — 182 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)
- Any gratitude expression: "Thanks for...", "Thanks for catching that!"
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:
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 prior architectural decisions:
Stop and discuss with 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 182 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 0ec5c2654d16
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap (11 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,129 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 78% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 100 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-spec
Use after implementing tasks or mid-feature to verify code matches design docs and ensure they are in sync. Detects spec deviations, missing implementations, doc inconsistencies, and outdated docs in design and implementation documentation.
review-design
Review design, implementation, and task documents produced by design. Evaluates document quality, internal consistency, and technical soundness. Use after design completes and before starting implement.
review-architecture
Review a written architecture artifact — an ADR (docs/adr/), a broader architecture doc, the architecture section of a design doc, or a domain-reference kit (glossary + traps pages, reviewed as one composite artifact) — against the system it claims to describe. Verifies the EXISTENCE and TOPOLOGY of declared…
review-code
Code review of current git changes with an expert senior-engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements. Use when performing code reviews.
diff-skill
Compare two versions of a skill's instructions to detect degradations and complexity increases. TRIGGER when: user asks to diff, compare, or review changes to a skill's markdown instructions. Asymmetric check — only regressions count. Additions, clarifications, and strengthenings are not degradations. Compares HEAD →…
greet
Ask for the user's preferred name before greeting.