Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/greglas75/zuvonpx agentmods add skills/greglas75/zuvo/receive-reviewWrote 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/greglas75/zuvo/receive-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/greglas75/zuvo/receive-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/greglas75/zuvo/receive-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/greglas75/zuvo/receive-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/greglas75/zuvo/receive-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00030 | $0.03815 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01526 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00763 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00381 |
Grade A, and why
receive-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 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 — 346 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
zuvo:receive-review
Protocol for responding to code review feedback. Every review comment gets the same structured treatment: understand it, verify it against the actual code, decide whether to fix or push back, then implement precisely.
Mandatory File Loading
Before starting work, read each file below. Print the checklist with status.
CORE FILES LOADED:
1. ../../shared/includes/codesift-setup.md -- READ/MISSING
2. ../../shared/includes/run-logger.md -- READ/MISSING
3. ../../shared/includes/retrospective.md -- READ/MISSING
4. ../../shared/includes/knowledge-prime.md -- READ/MISSING
5. ../../shared/includes/knowledge-curate.md -- READ/MISSING
6. ../../shared/includes/backlog-protocol.md -- READ/MISSING
codesift-setup.md is first because the frontmatter declares 14 CodeSift tools and Step 3 (VERIFY)
depends on them — without the setup they are never preloaded, and the step that exists to catch a
reviewer citing stale code falls back to reading from memory, which is the failure it guards against.
backlog-protocol.md is loaded because the adversarial handling below routes non-localized WARNINGs
to backlog; instructing a backlog write without the protocol that defines its format and location
produces an entry nothing can read back.
Knowledge Prime
Run the knowledge prime protocol from knowledge-prime.md:
WORK_TYPE = "implementation"
WORK_KEYWORDS = <keywords from user request>
WORK_FILES = <files being touched>
The 6-Step Protocol
Process each review item through all six steps before moving to the next item.
Step 1: READ
Read the complete feedback without reacting. Do not start fixing anything.
- If the feedback is a PR comment thread, read every comment in the thread (not just the latest).
- If the feedback is a list, read the entire list before acting on any item.
- Identify each distinct action item. Number them for tracking.
Output:
Review items identified: N
1. [file:line] <one-line summary>
2. [file:line] <one-line summary>
...
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 45cbe15f19c7
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines 7a20aedc3313
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines 014511664d33
- 1mo ago First seen · 346 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 0f20ef1d9546
receive-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository greglas75/zuvo (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 3,815 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
align-docs
Align stale repository docs and task records; use --clean for a full documentation cleanup.
changelog
Add CHANGELOG.md entries, derive them from commits, or cut a Keep a Changelog and SemVer release.
handoff
Create a self-contained temporary handoff document when the user asks to transfer the session to a new chat or runs /handoff.
ai-agent-bench
Compare Claude Code and Codex on the same code task, with isolated worktrees, common checks, time, and cost.
update-deps
Update Python dependencies or pre-commit hooks while preserving the project's pin and configuration style.
phone-a-friend
Get an independent second opinion on a plan or code change from the other CLI, Claude Code or Codex.