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 agentmods add skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add JeremyDev87/codingbuddy --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JeremyDev87/codingbuddyWhat 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 | $0.00036 | $0.03354 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01677 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00671 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00335 |
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 2d 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 — 348 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Overview
Blind agreement with review feedback is as harmful as ignoring it. Implementing unverified suggestions introduces bugs, degrades architecture, and teaches reviewers that superficial comments get results.
Core principle: Treat every review comment as a hypothesis to be tested, not an instruction to be followed. Evidence determines your response, not authority or politeness.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of receiving code review.
The Iron Law
VERIFY BEFORE IMPLEMENTING — AGREEMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS SYCOPHANCY
- Reviewer authority does not replace verification. Senior engineers make mistakes too.
- "Sounds good, fixing now" without reading the referenced code is failure.
- Implementing a wrong fix is worse than the original code — it adds confusion AND a bug.
When to Use
Always use for:
- PR review comments requesting changes
- Code review feedback from teammates or AI agents
- EVAL mode feedback on your implementation
- Post-merge review comments requiring follow-up
Lighter process acceptable for:
- Typo fixes and formatting-only feedback (verify the typo exists, then fix)
- Documentation wording suggestions (read the suggestion, apply if clearer)
Do NOT use for:
- Automated linter/CI feedback (mechanical — just fix or configure)
- Pair programming feedback (synchronous — different workflow)
- Architectural review requiring re-planning (use
brainstormingorwriting-plansskills) - Giving reviews (use
pr-reviewskill instead)
Quick Reference
Feedback Classification
| Classification | Criteria | Verification Required | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must-Fix | Bug, crash, security vulnerability, data loss | YES — reproduce the issue | Fix immediately after verification |
| Evaluate | Alternative approach, refactoring, performance | YES — compare approaches | Implement if better, discuss if not |
| Preference | Style, naming, formatting, subjective taste | NO — check project conventions | Accept if convention-aligned, discuss if not |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 348 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A c84abb819120
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository JeremyDev87/codingbuddy (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 3,354 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
bzdesignprompt
为前端或网页设计任务选择并下载合适的 DESIGN.md 模板。当用户需要网页设计模板、UI 风格参考、设计系统、落地页或前端界面设计时，浏览长亭百智云 UI 设计模板库，根据产品场景和视觉偏好匹配模板，并将完整 DESIGN.md 保存到项目中。.
add-agent-property
Add a new property to the AI agents database. Use when the user wants to add, create, or introduce a new column, property, field, or feature to track across all agents in the comparison matrix. Handles all four required steps - database updates, groups.json, table display, and GitHub issue templates.
ai-agent-rules
This skill covers development patterns for the ai-agent-rules repository, a comprehensive collection of structured rules and guidelines for AI agent behavior. The repository focuses on maintaining consistent documentation standards, systematic rule organization, and automated synchronization workflows. It uses…
se-dev-server-code
Allows reading the decompiled C# code of the Space Engineers Dedicated Server.
se-dev-game-code
Allows reading the decompiled C# code of Space Engineers version 1.
se-dev-plugin
Plugin development for Space Engineers version 1. Search plugin code from PluginHub (client) and MagnetarHub (server) for examples and patterns.