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 ForgeyClap/claude-forge --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ForgeyClap/claude-forgeWrote 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/forgeyclap/claude-forge/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/forgeyclap/claude-forge/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/forgeyclap/claude-forge/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/forgeyclap/claude-forge/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/forgeyclap/claude-forge/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 | $0.01614 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00646 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00161 |
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 20d 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
89% identical to receiving-code-review — 10 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 — 216 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
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.
- 20d ago First seen · 216 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A efbde2cd5f7e
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ForgeyClap/claude-forge (2 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,614 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
validate
Use when operating as the Fabrik Validate stage agent. This skill guides final validation of an implementation, verifying requirements are met, tests pass, and the PR is ready to merge.
coding-quality-loop
Use when a coding agent must turn a software goal, bug, issue, or refactor into a small, verified, independently reviewed code change.
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
ln-42-dependency-upgrader
Upgrades dependencies in reversible batches with version-specific compatibility and regression checks.
ln-55-test-suite-auditor
Audits existing tests for risk coverage, reliable oracles and maintenance value; does not edit tests.