Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search/master/.ai/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-searchWrote 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/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search/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/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search/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 | $0.01475 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00590 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00295 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00147 |
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 today.
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
100% identical to receiving-code-review — 29 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 — 219 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 instruction-file 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.
- today First seen · 219 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 6a2d5014844e
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository flowing-abyss/obsidian-hybrid-search (113 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,475 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 29 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
plannotator-review
Open Plannotator's browser-based code review UI and address the returned feedback.
impl-validator
Independently check whether an implementation matches its stated goal and return PASS/WARN/FAIL with actionable issues. Use for second-opinion validation of an implementation or generated output.
plannotator
Reference for using Plannotator (its plannotator tool when you have one, otherwise the CLI): plan review, code review, annotating files, URLs, folders, and running local apps, annotating the last assistant message, browsing archived plan decisions, exporting or sharing Guided Reviews, and the Plannotator Inbox…
api-linter
MCP definition linter rules reference. Use when bun run lint:mcp or bun run devcheck reports a lint error or warning (format-parity, schema-is-object, name-format, server-json-, etc.) and you need to understand the rule, its severity, and how to fix it. Every rule ID the linter emits has an entry in this doc.
release-pr-review
Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…
codemark
Manage structural code bookmarks that survive refactoring. Use when the user says "remember this", "bookmark this", "save this location", "load my bookmarks", "what do I have bookmarked", "mark this code", "codemark", or when starting a new session and needing to reload context from a previous session. Also use…