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 synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill feedback-resolutiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/feedback-resolution)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/feedback-resolution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/feedback-resolution/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/feedback-resolution"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/feedback-resolution.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 | $0.00103 | $0.01499 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00749 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00300 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
feedback-resolution scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Feedback Resolution
Domain skill for systematically addressing PR review comments.
Iron Law
EVERY FIX TRACES TO A SPECIFIC REVIEW COMMENT OR THE BOY SCOUT RULE. Untraceable changes that fail the proximity test are out-of-context changes.
If you can't point to the review comment or the Boy Scout proximity test that motivated a change, the change doesn't belong in this round.
Focused Change Principle
When addressing feedback, fix what the feedback requires — and apply the Boy Scout Rule to files you're already modifying:
- Each feedback fix should be traceable to a specific review comment
- Don't add features while addressing feedback
- Don't change formatting in files not mentioned in feedback
- Boy Scout cleanup in files being modified for feedback is allowed if it passes the proximity test (see
code-quality-principles) - Boy Scout fixes get separate
improve:commits, never mixed with feedback fixes
Feedback Collection
Fetch all review feedback:
PR_NUM=$ARGUMENTS
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq '.nameWithOwner')
# Review comments with file:line context
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUM/comments --jq '.[] | {id: .id, path: .path, line: .line, body: .body, author: .user.login}'
# Review summaries and states
gh pr view $PR_NUM --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | {state: .state, body: .body, author: .author.login}'
# Root conversation threads (for grouping replies)
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUM/comments --jq '.[] | select(.in_reply_to_id == null) | .id'
Feedback Categorization
Categorize each comment:
| Category | Action |
|---|---|
| P1 — Must fix | Code bug, security issue, logic error |
| P2 — Should fix | Convention violation, missing test, unclear code |
| P3 — Consider | Style preference, optimization suggestion |
| Question | Needs response, not necessarily a code change |
| Resolved | Already fixed or no longer relevant |
Context Recovery
Don't trust line numbers from review comments — code may have changed since the review:
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 143 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A b51457370b86
feedback-resolution is a skill published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 1,499 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
phx-pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
merge-queue
Process the Refinery merge queue - collect agent work, detect and resolve conflicts, merge in dependency order, and verify integration.
document
Run /document pr | changelog | release-note | postmortem (or let it ask) to write the human facing prose about a change. Drafts from the real commits and diff, writing to the right place. Does not write code, tests, or specs.
simplify
Use when the user says "simplify this diff" or asks for a compression pass over a change-set. Not for dead-code sweeps: use deslop.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Use when a human explicitly asks to reshape or annotate one pull request for review. Don't use for pushing the rewritten branch or mutating any remote.