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 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/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/justmichael-80/mastervault/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/justmichael-80/mastervault/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 | $0.00038 | $0.01494 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00598 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,494 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
insights
Use when the user types /weekly or /monthly, asks for a weekly or monthly journal review or retrospective, asks 'how was my week' or 'how was my month', or wants trends, anomalies, or patterns across recent journal entries. Also fires when regenerating an insight report for a past week or month. NOT for writing…
patterns
Use when the user says /patterns or mentions the Instinct Engine, says "I keep noticing" or "this keeps coming up", after a weekly review, when a pattern is hardening, or at session end after repeated corrections, 5+ tool-call friction on a routine task, dead-end backtracking, or an undocumented discovery. Also as a…
evolve
Use when many related hardened instincts (high-confidence feedback/discovery memories) have piled up in one domain, when the user runs /evolve or asks to promote, cluster, graduate, or consolidate accumulated instincts into a Command, Skill, or Agent, or when files in Instinct Proposals need review. Part of the…
pr-reply
Answer reviewers on your own pull requests in other people's repos: find threads where the ball is on your side, tell humans from bots, do exactly what was asked and reply with evidence. Use at the start of any GitHub session or on a new-review alert. Triggers: /pr-reply, /prr, answer the reviewers, who is waiting on…
outbound-gate
Gate for any outbound message before it leaves: pull request or issue comment, DM, invite, post, email. Use before sending to check facts, tone, platform rules, registry status and AI-slop, and to block text that fails.
red-first-review
Review someone else's pull request by measuring which of its own guards its own test suite actually catches, via a small mutation matrix. Use when reviewing a PR, checking whether a regression test is real, or asked 'is this change actually tested?', 'does this test do anything', 'mutation test this'.