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 JeremyDev87/codingbuddy --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JeremyDev87/codingbuddyWrote 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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/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 | $0.00036 | $0.03354 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01342 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
- 1mo 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 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 3,354 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:using-lib-systemplane
Using lib-systemplane, the hot-reload runtime-config plane (Postgres LISTEN/NOTIFY or MongoDB change streams), in two modes. Sweep Mode detects DIY config reload (SIGHUP, fsnotify, viper, pgx LISTEN), manual tenant-scoping, hand-built admin CRUD, and v4 residue. Reference Mode catalogs client lifecycle and…
ring:adopting-lib-commons-huma-wrapper
Adopting the lib-commons/v5 shared Huma (OAS 3.1) OpenAPI wrapper + RFC 9457 problem model (commons/net/http/{openapi,problem}) in a Lerian Go service: wire openapi.New/ServeSpec + problem.Install (central >=500 scrub) on BOTH runtime and spec-gen paths, the per-rail problem.MapError flex seam, and rename-only spec…
ring:applying-composition-patterns
React composition patterns that scale. Avoid boolean prop proliferation by using compound components, lifting state, and composing internals. Use when refactoring components with boolean prop proliferation, building flexible component libraries, or during architecture review. Skip for simple components with 1-2 props…
ring:using-lib-observability
Using lib-observability v1.1.0, Lerian's OpenTelemetry foundation (lib-commons, lib-systemplane, lib-streaming depend on it), in two modes. Sweep Mode detects DIY zap/slog logging, raw OTel metrics, hand-rolled redaction, and hard-coded attribute strings. Reference Mode catalogs the log, metrics, zap, redaction, and…
ring:using-outbox
Using the transactional-outbox pattern across lib-streaming (writer) and lib-commons/v5/commons/outbox (repository + relay), in two modes. Sweep Mode detects DIY outbox tables, hand-rolled relay loops, send-and-pray emits, missing WithOutboxTx wrapping, and broker calls inside DB transactions. Reference Mode catalogs…