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 oleg494/coding-kit --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oleg494/coding-kitWrote 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/oleg494/coding-kit/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/receiving-code-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/oleg494/coding-kit/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/receiving-code-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 | $0.00038 | $0.01558 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00623 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00156 |
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.
This is a copy
94% identical to receiving-code-review — 48 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 — 214 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 an item is unclear:
Inspect the code, requirements and review context first.
If the answer remains outcome-changing, ask about that item.
Pause only work that depends on the missing answer.
Continue independent, understood and authorized fixes; do not guess.
Example:
your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
If 4 and 5 can change the other fixes, resolve them before dependent edits.
If independent, fix and verify 1,2,3,6; ask only about 4 and 5.
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 evidence is insufficient:
Investigate with available tools; name any concrete unavailable prerequisite.
Hold the affected change, not independent verified work.
IF a suggestion conflicts with the user's prior decisions:
Resolve the conflict with the user before that change; continue independent work.
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.
- 2d ago Changed 4e663e4c3a92
- 8d ago Changed 6a345ad7f353
- 11d ago Changed 16248cbf3460
- 25d ago Changed 002870bc55d4
- 26d ago Changed f4c66e9f4967
- 1mo ago Changed 2179ba1bbaa0
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 4cab9b0814e8
- 1mo ago Changed c50e9c20121e
- 1mo ago Changed e824427a0040
- 1mo ago First seen · 212 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 01d3f399d470
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,558 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 48 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Find bugs and potential issues in code changes.
spae-inspect
Optimization & Verification for the SPAE framework. Performs gap analysis on PLAN.md.
clean
Orchestrates purification and refactoring agents sequentially.
simplify
This skill should be used when the user asks to "simplify", "clean up the diff", "run simplify", "simplify the changes", "review changed code for cleanup", explicitly invokes "/simplify", or asks to "commit without simplify", "skip simplify for this commit", or "commit this but skip simplify". Reviews changed code…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…