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 MereWhiplash/engram-cogitator --skill receiving-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MereWhiplash/engram-cogitatorWrote 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/merewhiplash/engram-cogitator/receiving-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/merewhiplash/engram-cogitator/receiving-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/merewhiplash/engram-cogitator/receiving-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/merewhiplash/engram-cogitator/receiving-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/merewhiplash/engram-cogitator/receiving-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 | $0.00031 | $0.00672 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
receiving-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 11d 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Announce: "I'm using the receiving-review skill to process this feedback."
The Pattern
Read → Understand → Check EC → Verify → Evaluate → Implement
1. Read
Complete feedback without reacting.
2. Understand
Restate the requirement in your own words. If unclear, ask.
3. Check EC
Before accepting or rejecting, check for relevant context:
ec_search:
query: [topic of feedback]
type: decision
ec_search:
query: [component mentioned]
type: pattern
The current implementation might be there for a reason.
4. Verify
Check against codebase reality:
- Is this technically correct for THIS codebase?
- Does it break existing functionality?
- Is there a reason for the current implementation?
- Does EC have context explaining why it's done this way?
5. Evaluate
Is the suggestion sound? Consider:
- Does reviewer have full context?
- Does it conflict with prior architectural decisions?
- Is it YAGNI? (grep for usage first)
6. Implement @tdd
One item at a time. Test each fix (@verifying).
When to Push Back
Push back with technical reasoning if:
- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
- Reviewer lacks context (point to EC decision)
- Violates YAGNI (feature unused)
- Conflicts with architectural decisions stored in EC
- Technically incorrect for this stack
Example:
"Checked EC - we decided to use X because [rationale from decision memory]. Still want to change?"
Handling Unclear Feedback
If ANY item is unclear: Stop. Ask first.
Don't implement what you understand and ask about the rest. Items may be related.
Response Format
When feedback is correct:
"Fixed. [Brief description]"
"Good catch - [issue]. Fixed in [location]."
[Just fix it, show in code]
When pushing back:
"Checked EC - this was decided in [area]: [rationale]. Keep current impl?"
"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this. Remove (YAGNI)?"
"This conflicts with [pattern from EC]. Want to change the pattern?"
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 128 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 0f7a21d803a0
receiving-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MereWhiplash/engram-cogitator (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 672 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…