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 hnikoloski/imlazy --skill imlazy-receive-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hnikoloski/imlazyWrote 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/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-receive-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-receive-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-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/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-receive-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hnikoloski/imlazy/imlazy-receive-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 | $0.00040 | $0.01484 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00742 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00297 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
imlazy-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 12d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to receiving-code-review — 28 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 214 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Reception
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
Forbidden Responses
NEVER:
- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file violation)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
INSTEAD:
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just start working (actions > words)
Handling Unclear Feedback
IF any item is unclear:
STOP - do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
the user: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Source-Specific Handling
From the user
- Trusted - implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement
- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
From External Reviewers
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 214 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A b8ca68614e5c
imlazy-receive-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hnikoloski/imlazy (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,484 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 28 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
tfx-prune
A cleanup workflow that asks three AI coding assistants to independently identify unnecessary code, then removes only issues they agree are unwanted. It checks for duplication, needless abstractions, excessive error handling, and similar readability problems.
tfx-review
A code-review workflow that asks several command-line AI reviewers to inspect changes independently, then reports issues that at least two reviewers agree on. TDD means test-driven development, where tests are written to guide implementation, but this add-on is for reviewing code rather than defining TDD.
tfx-analysis
A code and architecture analysis workflow that can ask several command-line agents to examine a project from different viewpoints, including architecture, security, performance, user experience, and documentation.
do-it-review
Use to assess requirements and implementation quality independently, or to resolve a batch of review findings.
done
Run the closeout ritual before handing back non-trivial work; full verification, revert-probe honesty, independent review, and scope reporting. Use before declaring completion, opening a PR, wrapping up a change, or "ปิดงาน".