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 technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins --skill pull-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-pluginsWrote 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/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins/pull-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins/pull-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins/pull-feedback/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/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins/pull-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/technicalpickles/pickled-claude-plugins/pull-feedback.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00112 | $0.01437 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00575 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00144 |
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 23d 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 — 100 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. If a reviewer left feedback as a review body instead of (or in addition to) inline comments, it appears in its own ## Review comments section with a <!-- review: N --> anchor per review — triage those the same way. Use targeted Edit calls to fill three slots per thread or review:
- 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.
What ships with it
24 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 7.9 KB runs code
- lib/query.graphql 1017 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 420 B
- tests/fixtures/outdated.comments.json 3 B
- tests/fixtures/outdated.json 1.2 KB
- tests/fixtures/review-body-only.comments.json 3 B
- tests/fixtures/review-body-only.json 751 B
- tests/fixtures/reviewer-multiple-rounds.comments.json 3 B
- tests/fixtures/reviewer-multiple-rounds.json 954 B
- 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/golden/review-body-only.md 469 B
- tests/golden/reviewer-multiple-rounds.md 443 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.
- 23d ago Changed · +1 lines · +77 tokens per session 16da19cdb62e
- 1mo ago Changed 76b2d0905669
- 1mo 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 (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 1,437 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
understand-diff
Use when you need to analyze git diffs or pull requests to understand what changed, affected components, and risks.
skills-pr-handle
Use when explicitly asked to handle a pull request in the Scenario skills repository, including review comments and skill validation.
pr-handle-comments
Handle review comments received on GitHub for the current branch's PR or a given PR number or URL, by triaging each unresolved thread, fixing what is warranted, pushing, and replying in each thread, when asked to address, fix or answer PR comments. Works in any Scenario repository.
flow-next-worktree-kit
Manage git worktrees (create/list/switch/cleanup) and copy .env files. Use for parallel feature work, isolated review, clean workspace, or when user mentions worktrees.
work-with-pr
Full PR lifecycle in a fresh task-owned git worktree: implement via the ulw-loop skill with mandatory evidence-bound manual QA → reviewer-readable English PR → verification loop (CI + Cubic, where Cubic is skipped only when its quota is exhausted) → merge by default → worktree cleanup. Decomposes one task into the…
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.