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 Go1c/LumioAgent --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Go1c/LumioAgentWrote 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/go1c/lumioagent/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/go1c/lumioagent/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/go1c/lumioagent/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/go1c/lumioagent/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/go1c/lumioagent/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 | $0.00768 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00307 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00077 |
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 2mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
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
No Performative Agreement
NEVER: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for catching that!" — or any praise/gratitude filler.
INSTEAD: restate the requirement, ask a clarifying question, push back with technical reasoning — or just fix it and let the code show you heard. When feedback is correct: "Fixed. [what changed]." When you pushed back and were wrong: "Verified — you're correct because [reason]. Fixing." State it factually and move on; no long apology, no defending the original pushback.
Unclear Feedback
If ANY item is unclear, stop — clarify ALL items before implementing any. Items may be related; partial understanding = wrong implementation.
User: "Fix 1-6" — you understand 1,2,3,6.
❌ Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
Evaluating the Source
From the user: trusted — implement after understanding. Still ask if scope is unclear.
From external reviewers: be skeptical, but check carefully —
- Technically correct for THIS codebase? Does it break existing functionality? Is there a reason (legacy, compatibility) for the current implementation?
- Reviewer suggests "implementing properly"? grep for actual usage first — unused code gets removed (YAGNI), not upgraded.
- Can't verify? Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Investigate, ask, or proceed?"
- Conflicts with the user's prior decisions? Stop and discuss with the user 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 81 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e8ff3b906af2
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Go1c/LumioAgent (20 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 768 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 2026-08-30.
receiving-code-review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| receiving-code-reviewGo1c/LumioAgent | Skill | 20 | 4mo ago | MIT | A | 38 | Claude Code, Codex |
| engram-testing-coverageGentleman-Programming/engram | Skill | 8.1k | today | MIT | A | 25 | Claude Code, Codex |
| principle-test-behavior-not-implementationmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Skill | 4.3k | today | MIT | A | 50 | Claude Code |
| nw-ddd-eventsourcingnWave-ai/nWave | Skill | 635 | today | MIT | A | 38 | Claude Code |
| nw-leanux-methodologynWave-ai/nWave | Skill | 635 | today | MIT | A | 37 | Claude Code |
| nw-fp-clojurenWave-ai/nWave | Skill | 635 | today | MIT | A | 25 | Claude Code |
| tddcodewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit | Skill | 829 | 8d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |