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/justmichael-80/mastervault/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add JustMichael-80/MasterVault --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JustMichael-80/MasterVaultWrote 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/justmichael-80/mastervault/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/justmichael-80/mastervault/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/justmichael-80/mastervault/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 | $0.00038 | $0.01494 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00747 |
| Sonnet 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 4d 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 214 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 647036bbdab7
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository JustMichael-80/MasterVault (12 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,494 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
wiki-ingest
Ingest supplied source material into an Obsidian vault with provenance and claim tracking: pasted text, files staged in the selected vault's inbox or .raw archive, or explicitly approved URLs. Use for a single source or bounded batch, not for saving an assistant answer. Triggers: ingest, ingest this file, ingest this…
autoresearch
Run a bounded, source-grounded research loop, draft a cited dossier, and optionally propose a separately reviewed canonical vault merge. Use when the user wants autonomous or deep research that may access the public web. Triggers: /autoresearch, autoresearch, research this topic, deep dive into, investigate, find…
canvas
Create, inspect, and update Obsidian JSON Canvas boards with text, file, link, group, and edge nodes. Use for canvas status, canvas lists, visual maps, zones, spatial layouts, adding vault notes or media to a .canvas file, and requests such as create canvas, add to canvas, or put this on the canvas.
wiki-retrieve
Build and query a vault-local contextual BM25 retrieval index with optional multilingual Nomic cosine reranking; use for retrieve, hybrid retrieval, BM25, rerank, contextual retrieval, chunk search, vault search, semantic search, find relevant passages, or retrieval diagnostics. Derived caches stay under .vault-meta…
wiki
Initialize, adopt, and route work for a separate Obsidian knowledge vault through the portable claude-obsidian core. Use for vault setup, scaffolding, workspace selection, cross-project configuration, or choosing the correct wiki sub-skill. Triggers: /wiki, set up wiki, scaffold vault, create knowledge base, adopt…
defuddle
Plan and, with explicit network consent, use an optional external Defuddle cleaner to extract article-like HTTPS pages as Markdown. Use for defuddle, clean this URL, strip page clutter, readable Markdown from a web page, or preparing a web source for later wiki ingestion.