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 helderberto/agent-skills --skill feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/helderberto/agent-skillsWrote 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/helderberto/agent-skills/feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/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/helderberto/agent-skills/feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/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 | $0.00075 | $0.00884 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Feedback
Consume the review comments already on a PR — Copilot and human reviewers — and sort them into what's worth fixing and what isn't. This is judgment, not a fresh review: each comment is verified against the current code before a verdict.
Read-only. Never reply to threads, resolve conversations, or post anything. The output is a decision aid for the user.
Distinct from code-review, which generates new findings: this skill evaluates existing reviewer comments.
Workflow
-
Fetch with
gh— pull the PR's review comments (default to the current branch's PR). Cover both inline thread comments and top-level review summaries, from Copilot and human reviewers. Keep only unresolved threads — resolution state lives in the GraphQLreviewThreadsfield (isResolved), not RESTpulls/comments, so reach forgh api graphqlwhen you need to filter out resolved/outdated noise. Capture author,path,line, and body for each. No unresolved comments → report that and stop. -
Verify each against current code — read the file at
path:lineand confirm the comment still applies. Reviewers (especially bots) comment on stale diffs and miss surrounding context. Anoutdated: truethread defaults toward Skip unless the concern still holds in the current code. Completion: every comment has been checked against the actual code, not judged from its text alone. -
Classify each comment using the rubric below. Every verdict carries a one-line rationale grounded in what you saw in step 2.
-
Output the triage table — grouped Address-first (see Output). Completion: every fetched comment appears in the table with a verdict and rationale.
-
Offer to fix — ask whether to implement the Address items. On yes, call the Skill tool with
tddfor them (test-first). Don't auto-implement; don't touch Skip/Optional/Discuss items.
Rubric
| Verdict | When |
|---|---|
| Address | Verified against current code as a real bug, risk, correctness gap, or clearly valid improvement. |
| Skip | Wrong, false positive, outdated (code already changed), contradicts an established codebase convention, or outside this PR's scope. Rationale must cite the evidence, not just assert it. |
| Optional | Subjective/style/preference with no correctness impact — the user's call. |
| Discuss | Valid concern needing a decision you can't make alone (product tradeoff, breaking change, architectural direction). |
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 65 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A aee1502b06f7
feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository helderberto/agent-skills (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 884 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-12.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted…
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
code-review-and-quality
A code-review guide for checking changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before they are merged.
doubt-driven-development
A development practice that puts an independent, fresh-context challenge in front of important coding decisions.
code-simplification
A code-review and refactoring guide for making existing code easier to read while keeping its behavior unchanged. Refactoring means changing how code is organized without changing what it does.