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/drizzy07x/skillquiver/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add Drizzy07x/Skillquiver --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Drizzy07x/SkillquiverWrote 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/drizzy07x/skillquiver/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/drizzy07x/skillquiver/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/drizzy07x/skillquiver/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 | $0.00035 | $0.01426 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00285 |
| 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 4d 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
83% identical to receiving-code-review — 57 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.
Code Review Reception
Overview
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. This skill is the receiving side of the reviews dispatched by requesting-code-review.
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
Acknowledging Feedback
NEVER:
- "You're absolutely right!" (banned phrase)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Thanks for catching that!" / ANY gratitude expression
- "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)
When feedback IS correct:
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback. If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
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
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 197 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 06159432f223
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Drizzy07x/Skillquiver (2 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,426 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 57 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
google-ads-audit
Google Ads account audit and business context setup. Run this first — it gathers business information, analyzes account health, and saves context that all other ads skills reuse. Trigger on "audit my ads", "ads audit", "set up my ads", "onboard", "account overview", "how's my account", "ads health check", "what should…
review
5-pass structured code review — correctness, security, performance, readability, consistency.
alive:system-upgrade
Upgrade ALIVE to the current version. Handles v1/v2/v3.x source states, multi-surface aware (alive-mcp / Hermes / Codex), retroactive version detection, partial-failure resume, dry-run previews, and rollback inspection.
codex-test-gen
Generate unit tests for specified functions using Codex MCP.
brand-docx
Brand-aware Word engine. Use to (1) EXTRACT a company's brand from a Word template into a reusable "Brand Profile", (2) COMPREHEND the template with the model (optional), (3) VERIFY it, (4) GENERATE new on-brand .docx documents FROM a saved profile. Trigger on "extract our brand", "learn/match this template", "use our…
extract-resume
Parse a resume's uploaded PDF into structured JSON (basics, experience, projects, skills, education) and save it to the editor.