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 kaivyy/kabot --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kaivyy/kabotWrote 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/kaivyy/kabot/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kaivyy/kabot/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaivyy/kabot/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/kaivyy/kabot/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaivyy/kabot/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 | $0.01489 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00596 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00298 |
| 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
94% identical to receiving-code-review — 12 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 CLAUDE.md 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 c9382e92b8f3
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository kaivyy/kabot (20 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,489 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Use this skill when the user asks for a code review, audit, or “what could be wrong here”. The output should be a review, not a rewrite: prioritize bugs, security risks, behavioral regressions, and missing tests.
review-pr
A pull-request review skill for evaluating proposed code changes and posting a quality verdict. A pull request is a request to merge changes into a shared codebase.
reconcile-docs
Best-effort reconciliation of the living architecture corpus against the code: the model reads docs/architecture/ plus the code and lists divergences with coordinates. Advisory only — an opinion of the model, never a verified verdict, no gates and no stamps. Nothing is applied automatically: corpus edits are a…
review
A read-only second opinion on a completed TASK, produced by another coding agent or by a separate clean-context review.
agent_management
This Skill provides a complete management guide for OpenSquad Agents, covering the full workflow of creation, configuration, deployment, and troubleshooting.
check-work
Check your work with a verification subagent that reviews diffs, runs builds and tests, and evaluates correctness. Read this file for instructions. Use when asked to "check work", "verify changes", "self-verify", "/check-work", "/check", "/verify", or "/self-verify".