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 eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-oneWrote 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/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/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/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/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 | $0.00038 | $0.01489 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00745 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00298 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00149 |
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
94% identical to receiving-code-review — 12 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 — 214 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!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "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)
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 · 214 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A c9382e92b8f3
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one (52 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,489 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-gap-review
Review whether existing tests and verification credibly prove a scoped behavior contract. Use during validation when evidence may omit important behavior or provide false confidence.
crap-index-assess
Assess method-level change risk with the Change Risk Anti-Patterns (CRAP) index and recommend focused testing or complexity reduction. Use when a repository configures CRAP measurement, cyclomatic complexity and automated test coverage data are available, or a user asks what CRAP means, how to calculate or interpret…
behavior-implement
Implement behavior through a red-green-refactor cycle when focused automated tests are proportionate. Use for product behavior changes and for engineering tooling and infrastructure only when native checks are insufficient and concrete complexity or failure risk warrants dedicated tests.
test-design
Design or write reproducible tests matched to behavioral risk before implementation. Use for product behavior and for engineering tooling and infrastructure only when native checks are insufficient and concrete complexity or failure risk warrants proportionate dedicated tests.
phase-validate
Validate exactly one implemented phase or scoped change against its authoritative contract. Use after implementation to re-derive criterion-level conclusions from current evidence and fix only required implementation gaps.
cli-control
Verify terminal-hosted CLI or TUI behavior with repeatable local evidence. Use for output, prompts, interactive input, signals, hangs, resizing, startup, exit status, or terminal restoration.