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 skywalkercyt/mp-implement --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/skywalkercyt/mp-implementWrote 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/skywalkercyt/mp-implement/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/skywalkercyt/mp-implement/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skywalkercyt/mp-implement/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/skywalkercyt/mp-implement/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skywalkercyt/mp-implement/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00430 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00172 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
- 1mo 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 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 430 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
ring:mapping-feature-relationships
Mapping how features relate and phasing the work: categorizing PRD features, grouping them into domains, charting cross-feature journeys, dependencies, and integration points, and defining the binding Phases that plan.md mirrors one-to-one at Gate 7. Gate 2 of ring:planning-large-features; runs after…