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 mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex --skill receiving-code-review-codexgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codexWrote 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/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/receiving-code-review-codex)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/receiving-code-review-codex"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex/receiving-code-review-codex.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00041 | $0.01812 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00906 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00362 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
receiving-code-review-codex 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 6d 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
83% identical to receiving-code-review — 50 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 — 250 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
Trust hierarchy: your human partner > Codex review > external reviewers. Sources listed in descending trust order — higher-trust sources need less verification.
From your human partner
- Trusted - implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement
- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 250 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A d6bec36d24bb
receiving-code-review-codex is a skill published in the GitHub repository mzored/superpowers-cc-to-codex (7 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,812 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 50 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit-round
External-audit role for arcgentic rounds. Loaded when arcgentic state.yaml is in awaitingaudit or auditinprogress, OR when the user explicitly requests an external audit of a finished round, OR when reviewing a handoff doc + commit chain against the round's declared scope. Produces a PASS / NEEDSFIX / AUDITINCOMPLETE…
code-reviewer
Code review knowledge base: quality, security (OWASP Top 10), error-handling, performance, and test-coverage checklists with severity-ranked output format. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or before commits. Loaded automatically by the code-reviewer agent.
pr-review
Use when the user wants to deeply review a pull/merge request or a local diff — "review this PR", "grill the MR", "stress-test this diff", "deep-dive code review", "code review before merge", or when they name a PR/MR URL, number, branch, commit range (A..B/A...B), tag or SHA. Works on GitHub (gh), GitLab (glab), or a…
arrow-maintenance
Navigation and audit overlay for linked-intent development. Use when working with docs/arrows/ — orienting via index.yaml, auditing spec-to-code coherence, detecting reverse orphans and drift, splitting/merging/renaming/re-parenting segments. Dual-mode: ambient guidance when the overlay is present…
reviewer
Philosophical guardrails enforcer — independently audits code, tests, and spec for layered-integrity, Why>What, error-as-data, and the related Ironclad philosophical invariants. Activate only when the connected project contains spec.yaml or the user explicitly names Cladding; ignore ordinary requests in uninitialized…
refactor
Structured refactoring runner with ETAP workflow, resumable CONTRACT, and batch processing. Use when restructuring code, extracting methods, splitting files, breaking circular dependencies, or cleaning up god classes. NOT for new features (use zuvo:build). Execution modes: full (default), batch (queue processing).…