Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nicograef/handbook. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nicograef/handbook/main/.claude/skills/receiving-feedback/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nicograef/handbookWrote 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/nicograef/handbook/receiving-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nicograef/handbook/receiving-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicograef/handbook/receiving-feedback.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 | $0.00063 | $0.00722 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00361 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
receiving-feedback 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 3d 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Feedback
Adapted from the MIT-licensed superpowers plugin.
Workflow
- Read all feedback first. Do not reply or start fixing item by item.
- Items are often related; a partial read leads to a wrong fix.
- Restate each item as a concrete technical requirement in your own words.
- Genuinely ambiguous item — mark it unclear instead of guessing.
- Any item unclear — ask about all unclear items before implementing anything.
- Never implement the clear items first and ask later.
- Resolving the unclear ones can change how the clear ones should be done.
- Verify each clear item against the actual codebase:
- Does it match current behavior, or is the reviewer assuming something false?
- Would the change break existing tests or other callers?
- Is there a reason the code is the way it is?
- Such reasons: compatibility, a prior decision, a constraint the reviewer may not see.
- Is the suggestion actually used, or does it add something nothing calls (YAGNI)?
- Evaluate technical soundness for this stack.
- A suggestion can be generically reasonable and still wrong for Nico's stack.
- Judge it in that context, never in the abstract.
- That context: the stack of the repo in hand, discovered per task.
- Push back with reasoning when a suggestion is wrong.
- State the specific technical reason: a failing assumption, a broken test, a compatibility constraint.
- Then propose an alternative, or ask which tradeoff to take.
- Implement one item at a time, in this order: blocking issues (bugs, security), then
simple fixes, then complex/structural fixes.
- Verify each one (tests, build, manual check) before moving to the next.
- Report back factually.
- Implemented — what changed and where.
- Not implemented — the item, plus the technical reason it was rejected.
- Wrong pushback — you pushed back and were wrong: say so plainly, then fix it.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -4 lines 6ab65191968d
- 7d ago First seen · 65 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 23ad08f3d66b
receiving-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository nicograef/handbook (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 722 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…