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 GeonheeYe/multi-agent-dotfiles --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GeonheeYe/multi-agent-dotfilesWrote 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/geonheeye/multi-agent-dotfiles/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/geonheeye/multi-agent-dotfiles/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/geonheeye/multi-agent-dotfiles/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/geonheeye/multi-agent-dotfiles/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/geonheeye/multi-agent-dotfiles/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 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00596 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 214 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A c9382e92b8f3
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository GeonheeYe/multi-agent-dotfiles (3 stars, last pushed 13d ago), with no licence file. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,489 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Use when asked to review a PR, MR, branch, or diff, audit changed files, or check code quality.
review-all
Use when the user asks for a deep review, full review, comprehensive review, production readiness assessment, full audit, multi-domain audit, "security and reliability and code review", or "review everything". Also use when the user explicitly requests performance review alongside the comprehensive request (e.g.…
active-review
Use when the user wants to prepare for a manual PR code review and asks for help targeting it — a terse PR summary, ranked files to read first, and paste-ready inline comment drafts with GitHub deep-links. Triggers: "active review this PR", "walk me through this PR", "help me review this", "give me inline comments to…
review-api-compat
Use when the user asks for an API compatibility review, breaking change review, proto breaking change review, buf breaking review, OpenAPI compatibility check, gRPC backwards compatibility audit, "are these API changes breaking", "did we break the wire", contract evolution review, or backwards-compatibility audit on…
review-documentation
Use when the user asks for a documentation review, doc audit, doc comment review, godoc review, proto comment review, OpenAPI or Swagger spec review, README review, example test review, "are the docs in sync with the code", "do the docs still match", "are these comments accurate", or "check the examples". Also use…
review-reliability
Use when the user asks for a reliability review, production readiness assessment, stability analysis, graceful shutdown audit, drain or rollout review, timeout review, timeout budget check, deadline propagation review, circuit breaker or bulkhead review, retry and backoff review, goroutine leak or resource leak…