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/coctostan/pi-superpowers-plus/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add coctostan/pi-superpowers-plus --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/coctostan/pi-superpowers-plusWrote 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/coctostan/pi-superpowers-plus/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/coctostan/pi-superpowers-plus/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/coctostan/pi-superpowers-plus/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 | $0.00038 | $0.01413 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00707 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00283 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00141 |
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 6d 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
84% identical to receiving-code-review — 51 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 — 197 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Related skills: Verify each fix with
/skill:verification-before-completion. Use/skill:test-driven-developmentfor regression tests.
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
How to Respond
Never performative:
- ❌ "You're absolutely right!" / "Great point!" / "Thanks for catching that!"
- ❌ "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
Instead:
- ✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
- ✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
- ✅ Just fix it silently — the code shows you heard the feedback
- ✅ Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- ✅ Ask clarifying questions if unclear
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:
your human partner: "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 your human partner
- 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 your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 197 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A b56306640062
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository coctostan/pi-superpowers-plus (104 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,413 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 51 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
surf
Control Chrome browser via CLI for testing, automation, and debugging. Use when the user needs browser automation, screenshots, form filling, page inspection, network/CPU emulation, DevTools streaming, or AI queries via ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity/Grok/AI Studio.
prose-review
Review prose written for others (e.g., user-facing documentation, prompts for other LLMs, reports, plans, inline comments, docstrings) for local jargon leakage, orphaned references, missing grounding, and audience or genre mismatch. Always run on prose you produce or materially edit, except for routine conversational…
text-search
Search indexed text corpora with qmd. For indexed content, prefer qmd over grep.
repoprompt-tool-guidance-refresh
Refresh RepoPrompt tool guidance when the CLI/MCP surface changes. Tracks RepoPrompt CE (rpce-cli, the maintained target) across versions, and can diff the frozen Classic CLI (rp-cli) against CE. Uses /.pi/agent/skills/repoprompt-tool-guidance-refresh/scripts/track-rp-version.sh to capture/diff --help and -l (tool…
pi-commandcode-release
Use when preparing, validating, publishing, or documenting a pi-commandcode-provider release/deployment, including version bumps, changelog entries, npm publish, GitHub releases, tags, and release follow-up comments.
refresh-model-catalog
Use when adding or removing Command Code models, refreshing the model catalog snapshot (image, reasoning, effort, output-limit metadata), updating display pricing, or refreshing test fixtures in pi-commandcode-provider.