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 KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill code-review-responsegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/code-review-response)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/code-review-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/code-review-response/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/code-review-response"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/code-review-response.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 | $0.00075 | $0.00741 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-response 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 28d 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code review is a technical exchange, not a social one. The job isn't to agree warmly and start changing things; it's to understand each point, verify it against the real code, and then implement it, push back on it, or ask about it on the merits. Blindly applying a suggestion that's wrong for this codebase is as much a failure as ignoring a good one.
The response pattern
For each piece of feedback:
- Read it fully before reacting. Take in all of it, not just the first comment.
- Restate the point in your own words, or ask, if you can't. If you can't articulate what's being asked, you can't correctly implement it.
- Verify against reality. Check the claim against the actual codebase. Is the problem real here? Does the suggested approach fit how this code already works?
- Evaluate on technical merit. Is it sound for this codebase, not just in the abstract?
- Respond. A technical acknowledgement, a clarifying question, or reasoned pushback, whichever the evaluation produced.
- Implement one item at a time, verifying each before moving to the next.
Skip the performance
Don't open with "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", or "Let me implement that right away": the first two are filler, and the third commits you before you've checked anything. Replace the reflex with substance: restate the technical requirement, ask a clarifying question, push back with reasoning if it's wrong, or just quietly start the work. Actions communicate more than agreement noises.
When feedback is unclear
If any item is ambiguous, stop (don't implement anything yet) and ask about the unclear items specifically. Guessing at what a reviewer meant and building the wrong thing wastes both your effort and their next review. It's faster to ask.
When feedback seems wrong
Sometimes a suggestion is incorrect for this codebase: it misreads the code, conflicts with a constraint the reviewer can't see, or would introduce a regression. Push back, with evidence. Cite the file and line, state the concrete problem the suggestion would cause, and propose the alternative. A reviewer would rather be shown a real issue than have a mistaken comment implemented silently. If you turn out to be the one who's wrong, you've learned something; either way the code is better than if you'd agreed reflexively.
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.
- 28d ago Changed · +4 lines 8ed3950e4db7
- 1mo ago First seen · 37 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A b91b7fbafd12
code-review-response is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 741 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactor
Guides a refactor, cleanup, or restructure with the right decomposition. Use when the user asks to refactor, simplify, extract, or modernize code.
pre-publish-review
Nuclear-grade 12-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (orchestrator manual QA plus one gate reviewer) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release…
work-with-pr
Full PR lifecycle in a fresh task-owned git worktree: implement via the ulw-loop skill with mandatory evidence-bound manual QA → reviewer-readable English PR → verification loop (CI + Cubic, where Cubic is skipped only when its quota is exhausted) → merge by default → worktree cleanup. Decomposes one task into the…
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
tech-debt-audit
Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…