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 agentmods add skills/oleg494/coding-kit/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add oleg494/coding-kit --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oleg494/coding-kitWhat 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 | $0.00038 | $0.01482 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00741 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 3 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 — 209 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
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.
- yesterday First seen · 209 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 91d66c7a5166
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (1 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,482 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
run
Execute a named agent role with optimized instructions. Explicit invocation only ($run). Never trigger implicitly.
tip
Deliver a transformative life perspective shift and a productivity tip. Use when the user invokes /tip or wants non-technical inspiration or a fresh mental model.
agentic-evals
Design evaluation contracts and test plans for agentic systems. Create deterministic tests, trajectory evals, quality dimensions, gold-set criteria, and CI gates before or after implementation. Use when asked for tests first, an eval plan, success criteria, non-deterministic testing, LLM-as-judge setup, or…
agentic-production-readiness
Prepare an AI agent system for production operation. Cover SHIELD controls, sandbox/canary/production rollout, OpenTelemetry observability with GenAI semantic conventions, Agent Card drafting, governance, and post-deploy monitoring. Use for production readiness checks, go-live checklists, agent monitoring, agent…
agentic-security-review
Run a security and dependency audit for agent systems, tool-using AI apps, MCP/A2A integrations, or security-sensitive AI-generated code. Check slopsquatting risk, tool shadowing, rug pulls, memory/context poisoning, secrets, unsafe permissions, and common CWE patterns. Use when asked for security review, dependency…
agentic-spec
Create a structured specification before agentic coding work. Assemble the six context types, scale rigor for prototype/internal/production tasks, produce SPEC.md, and configure focused AGENTS.md boundaries. Use when asked to write a spec, plan a feature, design an agent/system, define architecture, or create…