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 OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin --skill review-reception-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OutlineDriven/odin-claude-pluginWrote 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/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/review-reception-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/review-reception-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/review-reception-protocol/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/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/review-reception-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/review-reception-protocol.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00055 | $0.00696 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
review-reception-protocol 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 5d 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 — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review reception protocol
Contract
| Field | Bound contract |
|---|---|
| Trigger | Receiving code review comment, suggestion, or objection, before acting on any of it |
| Authority | reversible-local: write only local files (source files, test files, drafts); do not post GitHub replies, trigger CI, open issues, or otherwise mutate any remote system |
| Side effect | Clarify every feedback item. Implement accepted items locally, one at a time, each with its own test. Draft factual technical pushback for questionable items. Stop before posting any GitHub reply or performing any remote mutation |
| Done | Every feedback item is classified: clarified or implemented locally with its own test, or answered by a drafted pushback; no GitHub reply or remote mutation is posted |
Inputs
- Feedback: the raw code review comment(s), PR thread, or inline suggestion. Required.
- Code under review: the relevant source files. Required.
- PR or issue thread: the full review context. Optional; use when available.
Procedure
- Extract every distinct feedback item from the review. Do not combine, rephrase, or infer unstated items.
- Clarify each item before acting on it. Resolve the precise intent behind each suggestion from context or by asking the user. Stop if the item cannot be resolved to a concrete, implementable statement.
- Classify each clarified item:
- Accepted: the suggestion aligns with the codebase and the user's intent.
- Questionable: the suggestion is technically incorrect, out of scope, or conflicts with design intent.
- Apply accepted items one at a time: a. Apply the change to the relevant source file. b. Write or update a test that covers the change. c. Verify the test passes before moving to the next item.
- Draft factual pushback for questionable items. Write a concise, technically grounded reply in a local draft file. State the specific reason the suggestion is not accepted, such as a design conflict, incorrect assumption, or scope mismatch. Do not post it.
- Stop. Do not post any GitHub reply, open any issue, trigger any CI pipeline, or otherwise mutate any remote system.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 47 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 1d97d2722a9a
review-reception-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin (35 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 696 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…
next-partial-prefetching-adoption
Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…