Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to HumanBean17/jrag. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/HumanBean17/jrag/master/.agents/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HumanBean17/jragWrote 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/humanbean17/jrag/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/humanbean17/jrag/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/humanbean17/jrag/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/humanbean17/jrag/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/humanbean17/jrag/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 | $0.01494 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00598 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00299 |
| 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 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to receiving-code-review — 8 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:
your human partner: "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 your human partner
- 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 your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner 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 · 214 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 647036bbdab7
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HumanBean17/jrag (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,494 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…
feedback-resolution
Address PR review feedback through surgical fixes traceable to specific comments, apply the Boy Scout Rule only to already-modified files (separate improve: commits), recover context by code snippet rather than line number, and enforce pushback only when factually incorrect, test-breaking, or CLAUDE.md-violating. Use…
holdout-validation
Cross-reference agent self-review claims and evidence-bundle entries against actual file state using hidden holdout scenarios, producing P1/P2/P3 findings mapped to visible acceptance criteria only. Checks that every expected value in the tests has the source the bundle claims and that every risk-map row has a…
code-review-methodology
Conduct two-stage code review: Stage 1 verifies spec compliance (criterion-to-code mapping), Stage 2 evaluates security, correctness, performance, and maintainability across 6 parallel facets with P1/P2/P3 synthesis and deduplication by file:line. For the Tests facet the reviewer derives expected behavior from the…
team-coordination
Coordinate agent teams for adversarial review (paired skeptic/verifier per facet, disposition-only challenge round, mechanical consolidation with confidence) or parallel implementation (5-6 non-overlapping tasks per teammate). Enforces independent analysis before shared conclusions. Reference only…
thanos-doctrine
The Thanos review method, a Steve Jobs-style simplicity review for code diffs, design documents and architecture. Use whenever reviewing or rethinking code, designs or architecture as Thanos, or when /snap or /rethink is invoked.