agentmods.dev

receiving-code-review

A review-handling guide for checking code review comments before changing the code. It encourages understanding, verification, and reasoned replies.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to restate review requests, check them against the codebase, ask questions, explain technical objections, and implement verified changes one at a time.
Why use it?
It helps avoid implementing unclear, incorrect, or unsuitable suggestions just to agree with a reviewer.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

280k +583 yesterday A scan 38 tokens original MIT
View the source file obra/superpowers
Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/obra/superpowers/receiving-code-review
Any agent
npx skills add obra/superpowers --skill receiving-code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/obra/superpowers

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 38 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,459 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00038 $0.01459
Opus 5 $0.00019 $0.00730
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00292
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00146

Measured 2d ago against content hash 091df1629510, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

receiving-code-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 2d 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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md · 206 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 206 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 instruction-file 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

From your human partner

  • Trusted - implement after understanding
  • Still ask if scope unclear
  • No performative agreement
  • Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From External Reviewers

BEFORE implementing:
  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?

IF suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

IF can't easily verify:
  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"

IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first

Read the full file on GitHub · 206 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 206 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 091df1629510

Subscribe to this mod's changes

receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository obra/superpowers (280,216 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,459 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.

Code reviewaibrainstormingcodingobrasdlcskills
Related

Other skills, from other repositories

skill-creator

Create, improve, evaluate, benchmark skills. Use when authoring a new skill, updating an existing one, running evals, or optimizing a skill's description for triggering. Don't use for invoking skills, writing prose, or scaffolding Python projects.

luongnv89/asm · 54 tokens

find-me-skills

Find Agent Skills for a goal the user cannot name yet, then export an installable bundle. Use when they ask which skills fit a project. Don't use for installing named skills, authoring skills, or catalog maintenance.

luongnv89/asm · 49 tokens

skill-upstream-pr

Improve an open-source GitHub skill and open a friendly suggestion PR upstream: fork, run skill-auto-improver, attach asm eval before/after metrics. Don't use for local-only skills, authoring from scratch, bulk repos, or registry publish.

luongnv89/asm · 56 tokens

well-formed

Review pull request diffs for code smells, style issues, and safety problems before merging.

luongnv89/asm · 22 tokens

skill-auto-improver

Improve an external, legacy, or drifted SKILL.md to the skill-creator standard — hard validation gates plus an advisory predictability audit. Don't use for authoring from scratch (skill-creator output is already standard), bulk eval, or prose edits.

luongnv89/asm · 58 tokens

skill-index-updater

Add GitHub skill repos to the ASM index: clone, audit, eval, regenerate index, rebuild catalog, open PR. Use when given GitHub URLs to onboard. Don't use for authoring (skill-creator), improving (skill-auto-improver), or install (asm install).

luongnv89/asm · 63 tokens