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 sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5 --skill feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5Wrote 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/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sergezuber/fabula-llm-5/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 | $0.00037 | $0.01539 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00770 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00308 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
compose: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 8d 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
92% identical to receiving-code-review — 19 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 — 215 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!" (sycophantic, not technical)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
INSTEAD:
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions through
compose:ask, presenting interpretations as options. If no user is available, take your best interpretation and proceed. - 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 through `compose:ask`, presenting your interpretations as options. If no user is available, take the most reasonable interpretation and proceed.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 215 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 3e693987eaea
compose:feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository sergezuber/FABULA-LLM-5 (83 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,539 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 19 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-audit
Systematic architecture audit and refactoring methodology for Rust + TypeScript codebases. Use when performing refactoring, cleanup, unification, code review, dead code removal, module reorganization, or tech debt elimination. Ensures no naming confusion, semantic overloading, hidden defaults, duplicate logic, or…
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
agentsop-repo-map
Symbol-level code context for LLM coder-agents: tree-sitter extracts symbols, PageRank ranks them over the cross-file reference graph, and the top class/function signatures are fed to the LLM as a token-budgeted read-only map (not RAG, no vector index, human-auditable). Use when an agent must locate the right files in…
michel-packmind-engineer-review
Review an implemented GitHub issue the way a senior Packmind engineer would — the human-judgment checks that ESLint, the TypeScript compiler, and e2e tests cannot catch (authorization scoping, hexagonal-architecture conformance, analytics-event wiring, UX copy, UI reactivity, CLI behavior, multi-tenancy safety, and…
scrutiny-validator
Adversarial scrutiny procedure for engineering validation assignments. Runs hard-gate commands, reviews the current implementation and evidence integrity against assigned contracts, can use feature-reviewer lanes, and returns per-target verdicts.
idea-team
A structured group discussion for exploring a product idea through three roles: researcher, critic, and analogy finder. The roles look for evidence, weaknesses, and useful comparisons.