Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to frostney/GocciaScript. 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/frostney/GocciaScript/main/.agents/skills/address-feedback/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/frostney/GocciaScriptWrote 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/frostney/gocciascript/address-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/frostney/gocciascript/address-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/frostney/gocciascript/address-feedback/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/frostney/gocciascript/address-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/frostney/gocciascript/address-feedback.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 | $0.00045 | $0.01089 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00436 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00218 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00109 |
Grade A, and why
address-feedback 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 yesterday.
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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address feedback
Resolve current review findings against their authorized claim and report
readiness for the exact PR head or complete native stack. When /deliver is
active, return the result and next transition to that caller, which owns the
selected delivery endpoint.
Reuse authorization and settled decisions within their scope across turns. Before a required pause, complete independent authorized work, then link the exact skill file as a Markdown link and quote the rule requiring a new material decision or authority verbatim in a block quote.
Resolve the scope from context
Use /address-feedback with an optional number, URL, or description. Infer the
intended target and scope from the request, conversation, handoff, and current
branch's PR or native stack context; no PR/stack selector is required.
Verify the repository and candidate identities through read-only GitHub
inspection before mutation. Confirm native stack identity and membership with
the Stacks API or gh stack; branch names, labels, and PR base chains are only
lookup clues. When a number could name either kind, use context and inspect the
plausible targets. A failed lookup is not proof that the other kind was intended.
Ask only if current evidence leaves multiple plausible targets, conflicting
scope, or no identifiable target.
- For one PR, read references/pr.md and use references/pr-readiness.md for readiness.
- For a complete native stack, read references/stack.md and references/stack-readiness.md.
- Preserve established scope: a request targeting one PR stays on that PR even when it belongs to a stack; a stack-wide workstream uses the complete verified stack. State the resolved target briefly and proceed without confirmation when evidence is clear. Read only the selected procedure unless scope changes.
What ships with it
17 files 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.
- references/pr-readiness.md 11 KB
- references/pr.md 11 KB
- references/stack-readiness.md 4.3 KB
- references/stack.md 8.9 KB
- scripts/coderabbit_adapter.py 53 KB runs code
- scripts/review_mutations.py 9.6 KB runs code
- scripts/review_observation.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/review_wait.py 20 KB runs code
- scripts/stack_state.py 13 KB runs code
- tests/coderabbit_replay.py 27 KB runs code
- tests/fixtures/coderabbit_recorded.json 2128 KB
- tests/record_coderabbit.py 19 KB runs code
- tests/test_coderabbit_adapter.py 104 KB runs code
- tests/test_coderabbit_replay.py 4.8 KB runs code
- tests/test_review_mutations.py 7.5 KB runs code
- tests/test_review_observation.py 20 KB runs code
- tests/test_stack_state.py 15 KB runs code
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.
- yesterday Changed · +3 lines 001ebc50c4c4
- 26d ago Changed · +4 lines · +9 tokens per session 59436bc477e0
- 29d ago First seen · 94 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 5476021fef60
address-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository frostney/GocciaScript (20 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,089 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-26.
Other skills, from other repositories
git-step-commit
Analyze Git changes, split them into coherent commits, infer message language and format, optionally close supplied GitHub issues, and execute safely. Manage persistent global or repository preferences for review versus direct submission and automatic or specified commit-message language through native Git config.…
triage-contributor-pr
Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/orm and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version…
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
review-triage-phase
Produces canonical review actions from fetched review state and renders action markdown. Use when the user wants only triage/action-planning for the review-framework workflow.
compiler-commit
Use when you want to verify compiler changes and commit with the correct convention. Runs tests, lint, and format, then commits with the [compiler] or [rust-compiler] prefix.
hero-diff-highlight
A dark code editor reveals a red deletion then a green addition with a soft pulse. Function: PR / code-change explainer.