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/skywalkercyt/mp-implement/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add skywalkercyt/mp-implement --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/skywalkercyt/mp-implementWhat 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 | $0.00043 | $0.00430 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00215 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00043 |
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.
What it actually says
Receiving Code Review
Adapted skill — discipline originating in Superpowers v5.1.0 (MIT, Jesse Vincent), rewritten in mattpocock-skills style. Governs how reviewer feedback is acted on in
/mp-implement-issuestep 8 and both pipelines' harvest.
Review feedback is data to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Process
- Verify each finding against the codebase before acting on it. Check it is technically correct for this code, doesn't break existing behavior, and isn't based on missing context.
- Clarify all unclear items before implementing any. Findings may be related; partial understanding produces wrong fixes.
- Act by severity. Fix Critical and Important before proceeding. Minor goes in the PR description or a follow-up issue.
- Implement one item at a time; test each fix and check for regressions.
Pushback
When the reviewer is wrong, push back with technical reasoning and evidence — working tests, the code itself, platform constraints. When a finding conflicts with a prior decision of the user's, put it to the user rather than silently following either side.
When your pushback was wrong, state the correction plainly and fix it. No apology, no defending the original position.
YAGNI check
Before accepting a "do it properly" suggestion, grep for actual usage of the thing being improved. If nothing uses it, propose deleting it instead.
Responding
Respond with the technical action — what you changed, what you verified, or why the finding is wrong. Agreement and gratitude carry no information; the code is the reply.
GitHub threads
Reply to inline review comments in the comment thread, not as a top-level PR comment:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies
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 First seen · 40 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 8c5e03e13342
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository skywalkercyt/mp-implement (2 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 430 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
nunit-code-style
Use when writing or modifying C# method bodies, type declarations, or non-trivial logic in NUnit source. Covers NUnit's taste-and-judgment conventions — exception construction, simplification, naming intent, StringComparison, non-null check form, and var usage — that aren't already caught at build time.
nunit-testing
Use when writing or modifying tests in NUnit's own test projects, or when making a behavioral change to production code that needs test coverage. Covers test structure, attribute choice, helper visibility, platform guards, and which test projects are real.
software-test-execution
Run scoped tests for a TDD slice, determine the appropriate test framework and command, and report structured pass/fail results. Use when tests need to be executed after writing, implementing, or refactoring code. Reads test metadata, discovers the test framework if needed, executes the scoped test command, parses…
nunit-api-design
Use when adding or modifying public API surface in NUnit — new or changed constraints, attributes, assertions, helpers, or any type/member visibility change. Covers the conventions NUnit maintainers enforce for types that ship to consumers of the framework.
nw-at-completeness-check
Canonical AT completeness gate — research-anchored 7-category taxonomy (C1-C7) + 15-item mechanical checklist. Paradigm-neutral. Drives acceptance-designer reviewer verdict deterministically.
nw-ab-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation.