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/stefaniuk/loadout/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add stefaniuk/loadout --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote 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/stefaniuk/loadout/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/receiving-code-review.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 | $0.00038 | $0.01563 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00781 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00313 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00156 |
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 3d 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 — 11 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 — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Workflow Mode Guard
Use this skill only when the active local workflow mode is superpowers.
Before proceeding:
- Run
./scripts/hooks/workflow-mode.sh status. - If the active mode is
speckit, stop and tell the user to switch withmake workflow-use mode=superpowersor continue with the Spec Kit lifecycle instead. - Do not mix Superpowers workflow skills with
speckit-*commands in the same session or worktree.
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
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 217 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 842efecbc91c
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,563 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 11 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
cli-logging-ux
Use this skill when editing or creating CLI output, logging, warnings, error messages, progress indicators, or diagnostic summaries in the APM codebase. Activate whenever code touches console helpers (richsuccess, richwarning, richerror, richinfo, richecho), DiagnosticCollector, STATUSSYMBOLS, CommandLogger, or any…
cut-release
Use this skill to cut an APM release from the current worktree: assess whether the cycle since the last tag warrants a patch or minor bump (semver discipline against the merged-since-last-tag diff), sanitize the [Unreleased] CHANGELOG block into a dated version block with one concise "so what" entry per merged PR…
docs-sync
Use this skill whenever a pull request is opened, reopened, or synchronized in microsoft/apm to assess whether and how the documentation corpus must change to stay truthful with the proposed code change. Activate even when the PR title or body says nothing about docs -- the skill must run on every PR to detect silent…
docs-impact-architect
Use this skill when the docs-impact-classifier returns a structural verdict, signalling that the documentation TOC must change to accommodate the PR. Proposes TOC deltas (new pages, moves, merges) and emits new-page outline stubs that the doc-sync panel later fleshes out. Holds the 3-promise narrative (consume /…
spec-kitty-charter-doctrine
Run charter interview, generation, context, and sync workflows for project governance in Spec Kitty 3.x. Access doctrine artifacts programmatically via DoctrineService. Resolve agent profiles. Load action-scoped governance context iteratively, not all at once. Triggers: "interview for charter", "generate charter"…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…