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 Joncik91/ucai --skill review-respondergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Joncik91/ucaiWrote 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/joncik91/ucai/review-responder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joncik91/ucai/review-responder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joncik91/ucai/review-responder/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/joncik91/ucai/review-responder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joncik91/ucai/review-responder.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00033 | $0.00673 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
review-responder 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
How to process reviewer feedback without sycophancy, false urgency, or capitulating to wrong suggestions.
Core Stance
Read the actual criticism. Separate signal from noise before reacting.
- Signal: bugs, logic errors, missing edge cases, security issues, spec deviations
- Noise: style opinions, hypothetical optimizations, "I would have done it differently"
Address signal immediately. Evaluate noise critically.
Forbidden Responses
Never open with these — they signal that you are validating the reviewer rather than the code:
| Forbidden | Why |
|---|---|
| "You're absolutely right!" | Accepting before verifying |
| "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" | Performative, adds no information |
| "I should have caught that." | Self-flagellation, not analysis |
| "Let me implement that right away." | Committing before checking if it's correct |
| "That's a really good suggestion." | Evaluating the person, not the idea |
The rule: respond to the substance, not the reviewer. No gratitude preamble — just address the finding.
YAGNI Gate
Before implementing any suggestion framed as "professional", "best practice", or "you should add X":
Is X actually used or needed in this codebase right now?
→ Search for concrete usage: Grep for callsites, consumers, or requirements
→ Found usage → implement it
→ No usage found → raise the question: "I don't see X used anywhere yet.
Are you anticipating a need, or is there a current requirement I missed?"
Do not implement speculative improvements silently. Surface the question.
How to Push Back
Factual disagreement is valid. State it directly without apologizing.
Structure:
- Acknowledge you read the feedback: one neutral sentence
- State your position with evidence: file:line, test result, or spec reference
- Offer to discuss if the reviewer has additional context
Example:
"I read the suggestion to add caching here. The current call volume is N/sec per the load test in
tests/perf.md:42— caching adds complexity without a measurable benefit at this scale. Happy to revisit if there's a use case I'm missing."
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 · 74 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 88aa568c1efd
review-responder is a skill published in the GitHub repository Joncik91/ucai (28 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 673 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
avi-pr-flow
Automate PR workflow with commit, push, create PR, and review cycle.
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…
team-review
Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency using a team of persistent named reviewers. This skill should be used when the user says "team review", "review with team", or wants parallel code review with persistent team members for follow-up questions. Similar to /subagent-review but reviewers persist after…
roslyn-query
Query .NET/C# codebases using Roslyn AST analysis via dotnet run file. Use for tracing data flow, auditing API usage, finding pattern violations, or ad-hoc codebase queries.
skill-distiller
Fetches top-rated skills from skills.sh, analyzes them, and synthesizes one token-efficient skill combining the best elements. Use when the user asks to "distill skills for X", "find and combine skills for X", "synthesize skills", "merge skills", "make a skill for X from skills.sh", "update distilled skill", or…