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 J-Pster/Psters_AI_Workflow --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/J-Pster/Psters_AI_WorkflowWrote 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/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/j-pster/psters_ai_workflow/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00021 | $0.00109 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00055 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00022 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00011 |
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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Receiving Code Review
Rule
Prioritize critical findings first. Do not dismiss without evidence.
Flow
- Group findings by severity.
- Address critical issues before any optional suggestions.
- Re-verify changed behavior after fixes.
- Summarize resolved vs deferred findings explicitly.
Output
- Resolved findings
- Deferred findings with rationale
- Verification evidence for high-impact fixes
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 24 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A dd3ab97cd7c4
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository J-Pster/Psters_AI_Workflow (289 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 109 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
criticism-self-criticism
A structured review method for examining completed work, criticism, and repeated mistakes. It focuses on specific evidence, causes, effects, and practical improvements.
planning
ONLY for coordinated multi-artifact work: multiple workflows with dependencies, shared data-table schema/migration across tasks, or the user explicitly asked to review a plan first. Load create-tasks via loadtool before calling it (search "create tasks" if not visible). Do NOT use for new one-off workflows…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.