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/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix --skill superpowers-receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonixWrote 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/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix/superpowers-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 5.1 | $0.00026 | $0.01139 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
superpowers-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 5d 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 — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Reception
Overview
Code review = technical evaluation. Not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness beats social comfort.
The Response Pattern
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Full feedback, no 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 ack 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 technical requirement; ask clarifying questions; push back with technical reasoning if wrong; or just start working (actions > words).
Handling Unclear Feedback
IF any item unclear:
STOP - implement nothing yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
Partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "Understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Source-Specific Handling
From your human partner
- Trusted — implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement — skip to action or technical ack
From External Reviewers (or a reviewer subagent)
BEFORE implementing:
1. Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Breaks existing functionality?
3. Reason for the current implementation?
4. Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Does the reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong: push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions: stop and discuss 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.
- 5d ago First seen · 152 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 0e60a94a8ee8
superpowers-receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository christopherarter/superpowers-reasonix (96 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,139 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
skill-creator
Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.
gh-pr-review
Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks…
prepare-release
Prepare a new release by collecting commits, generating bilingual release notes, updating version files, and creating a release branch. Use when asked to prepare/create a release, bump version, or run /prepare-release.
claude-automation-recommender
Analyze a codebase and recommend Claude Code automations (hooks, subagents, skills, plugins, MCP servers). Use when user asks for automation recommendations, wants to optimize their Claude Code setup, mentions improving Claude Code workflows, asks how to first set up Claude Code for a project, or wants to know what…
gh-create-issue
Use when user wants to create a GitHub issue for the current repository. Must read and follow the repository's issue template format.
gh-create-pr
Create or update GitHub pull requests using the repository-required workflow and template compliance. Use when asked to create/open/update a PR so the assistant reads .github/pullrequesttemplate.md, fills every template section, preserves markdown structure exactly, and marks missing data as N/A or None instead of…