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 Eilodon/DPS-Superskills-MCP --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Eilodon/DPS-Superskills-MCPWrote 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/eilodon/dps-superskills-mcp/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eilodon/dps-superskills-mcp/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eilodon/dps-superskills-mcp/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/eilodon/dps-superskills-mcp/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eilodon/dps-superskills-mcp/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 | $0.00032 | $0.00956 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00096 |
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 8d 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
The Response Pattern
1. READ Complete feedback without reacting
2. CLARIFY Anything unclear → ask FIRST, implement nothing until clear
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 with tdd-verified
Forbidden Responses
Never:
- "You're absolutely right!" / "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
- Any expression of gratitude — actions speak, not thanks
Instead:
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just start working
Handling Unclear Feedback
IF any item is unclear:
STOP — do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on all unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
Reviewer: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1, 2, 3, 6. Unclear on 4, 5.
❌ Implement 1,2,3,6 now — ask about 4,5 later
✅ "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Verification Before Implementing
For any external reviewer suggestion:
Before implementing:
1. Is this technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Does it break existing functionality?
3. Is there a reason for the current implementation?
4. Does reviewer understand the full context?
If suggestion seems wrong → push back with technical reasoning. If conflicts with architectural decisions → discuss with human first.
YAGNI Check
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly" a feature:
grep codebase for actual usage
Unused → "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
Used → implement as suggested
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 151 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 1326e3d93561
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Eilodon/DPS-Superskills-MCP (0 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 956 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…