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 mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace --skill review-implementinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplaceWrote 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/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/review-implementing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/review-implementing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/review-implementing/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/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/review-implementing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/review-implementing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00035 | $0.00770 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00385 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementing 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 13d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- review-implementing — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Feedback Implementation
Systematically process and implement changes based on code review feedback.
When to Use
- Provides reviewer comments or feedback
- Pastes PR review notes
- Mentions implementing review suggestions
- Says "address these comments" or "implement feedback"
- Shares list of changes requested by reviewers
Systematic Workflow
1. Parse Reviewer Notes
Identify individual feedback items:
- Split numbered lists (1., 2., etc.)
- Handle bullet points or unnumbered feedback
- Extract distinct change requests
- Clarify ambiguous items before starting
2. Create Todo List
Use TodoWrite tool to create actionable tasks:
- Each feedback item becomes one or more todos
- Break down complex feedback into smaller tasks
- Make tasks specific and measurable
- Mark first task as
in_progressbefore starting
Example:
- Add type hints to extract function
- Fix duplicate tag detection logic
- Update docstring in chain.py
- Add unit test for edge case
3. Implement Changes Systematically
For each todo item:
Locate relevant code:
- Use Grep to search for functions/classes
- Use Glob to find files by pattern
- Read current implementation
Make changes:
- Use Edit tool for modifications
- Follow project conventions (CLAUDE.md)
- Preserve existing functionality unless changing behavior
Verify changes:
- Check syntax correctness
- Run relevant tests if applicable
- Ensure changes address reviewer's intent
Update status:
- Mark todo as
completedimmediately after finishing - Move to next todo (only one
in_progressat a time)
4. Handle Different Feedback Types
Code changes:
- Use Edit tool for existing code
- Follow type hint conventions (PEP 604/585)
- Maintain consistent style
New features:
- Create new files with Write tool if needed
- Add corresponding tests
- Update documentation
Documentation:
- Update docstrings following project style
- Modify markdown files as needed
- Keep explanations concise
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 137 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 110c53375da7
review-implementing is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace (671 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 770 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
fork-discipline
Audit and enforce the core/client boundary in multi-client projects. Detects where shared platform code is tangled with client-specific code, finds hardcoded client checks, config files that replace instead of merge, scattered client code, migration conflicts, and missing extension points. Produces a boundary map…
react-patterns
React 19 performance patterns and composition architecture for Vite + Cloudflare projects. 50+ rules ranked by impact — eliminating waterfalls, bundle optimisation, re-render prevention, composition over boolean props, server/client boundaries, and React 19 APIs. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React…
codex-review
Run an independent code review using the OpenAI Codex CLI in headless mode. Gets a second opinion from a different model family (the current Codex models) on recent changes, a PR, a commit, or the whole app — covering bugs, regressions, security, data consistency, UX/state bugs, performance risks, and testing gaps.…