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/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins/pull-feedbacknpx skills add technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins --skill pull-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.01381 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00691 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00276 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
pull-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Git Pull Feedback
Overview
Pulls review feedback on a PR the user authored into a working doc with per-thread triage slots. The point is rigor: every unresolved thread gets a tentative verdict (valid / invalid / nice-to-have / needs-clarification) with reasoning and a plan, so the user can work through feedback deliberately instead of rubber-stamping.
Announce: "Using git:pull-feedback to pull and triage feedback on PR #N."
Workflow
1. Fetch
./fetch.sh [ref]
ref accepts a bare number, #N, owner/repo#N, a PR URL, or nothing (auto-detects from current branch). The script writes a skeleton doc to .scratch/pr-reviews/<N>/threads.md with _pending triage_ placeholders and prints counts on stdout. Use this output location — don't invent your own filename.
2. Orient only if context is cold
Add a ## Summary section (1-2 sentences on what the PR does + state of the review) only if you don't already know the PR. If the user has been discussing it in conversation or the branch name tells you, skip — guessing wastes tokens and risks confabulation.
3. Triage each unresolved thread (shallow pass)
Each thread has a unique <!-- thread: N --> anchor. Use targeted Edit calls to fill three slots per thread:
- Verdict (tentative): pick one, based on whether the reviewer is right:
- ✅ Valid — reviewer has a point, code needs to change
- ❌ Invalid — disagree for a concrete technical reason (not because the fix is inconvenient)
- 💡 Nice-to-have — reasonable suggestion, but out of scope for this PR
- ❓ Needs clarification — comment is ambiguous; ask the reviewer instead of guessing
- Reasoning: 1-3 sentences. Reference the comment body or the code, not vibes. Severity ≠ verdict — a "should-fix" can still be Invalid if the reviewer is wrong.
- Plan: concrete next step — fix inline, deep-dive first, reply-and-defer, ask reviewer.
Keep the (tentative) label. It's the shallow-pass signal; it invites deep-dive on anything non-obvious.
What ships with it
18 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- evals/evals.json 1.2 KB
- fetch.sh 6.1 KB runs code
- lib/query.graphql 757 B
- tests/fixtures/.gitkeep 0 B
- tests/fixtures/basic.comments.json 3 B
- tests/fixtures/basic.json 2.1 KB
- tests/fixtures/multi-reviewer.comments.json 71 B
- tests/fixtures/multi-reviewer.json 1.4 KB
- tests/fixtures/no-threads.comments.json 3 B
- tests/fixtures/no-threads.json 426 B
- tests/fixtures/outdated.comments.json 3 B
- tests/fixtures/outdated.json 1.2 KB
- tests/golden/.gitkeep 0 B
- tests/golden/basic.md 733 B
- tests/golden/multi-reviewer.md 448 B
- tests/golden/no-threads.md 159 B
- tests/golden/outdated.md 404 B
- tests/run-tests.sh 1.1 KB runs code
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 · 99 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 17a6383af476
pull-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins (10 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,381 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
html-ppt-hermes-cyber-terminal
OpenDesign + BYOK: choosing and wiring your own model, hands-on — cost, quality, and the routing decision. Built as a decision-grade AI literacy deck for engineers, IT, applied-AI teams.
verify-security
安全校验关卡。自动扫描代码安全漏洞，检测危险模式，确保安全决策有文档记录。当用户提到安全扫描、漏洞检测、安全审计、代码安全、OWASP、注入检测、敏感信息泄露时使用。在新建模块、安全相关变更、攻防任务、重构完成时自动触发。.
development
开发语言能力索引。Python、Go、Rust、TypeScript、Java、C++、Shell。当用户提到编程、开发、代码、语言时路由到此。.
post-build-flow
Handles workflow verification and setup after build-workflow succeeds, or when the message contains workflow-verification-follow-up or workflow-setup-required. Load after direct builds, when verificationReadiness requires action, or on orchestrator verify/setup follow-up turns.
n8n:create-pr
Creates GitHub pull requests with properly formatted titles that pass the check-pr-title CI validation. Use when creating PRs, submitting changes for review, or when the user says /pr or asks to create a pull request.
n8n:reproduce-bug
Reproduce a bug from a Linear ticket with a failing test. Expects the full ticket context (title, description, comments) to be provided as input.