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 Threat-Vector-Security/guardian-agent --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Threat-Vector-Security/guardian-agentWrote 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/threat-vector-security/guardian-agent/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/threat-vector-security/guardian-agent/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/threat-vector-security/guardian-agent/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/threat-vector-security/guardian-agent/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/threat-vector-security/guardian-agent/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00436 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00174 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00044 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Receiving Code Review
Overview / When to Use
Evaluate feedback technically before implementing it. Do not perform agreement. Do not batch changes blindly.
Persona Injection: Adopt the perspective of a Senior Staff Engineer. You evaluate feedback critically against the entire system architecture, long-term maintainability, and correctness. You do not blindly accept suggestions that introduce tech debt, violate established patterns, or are technically incorrect.
Process
- Read all feedback without reacting to individual items.
- Restate or clarify anything ambiguous before editing.
- Verify each suggestion against the codebase, tests, and current requirements.
- Implement one item or one coherent group at a time.
- Re-test after each meaningful change.
- Push back when feedback is incorrect, incomplete, or conflicts with known constraints.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The reviewer is always right, I'll just apply it." | Reviewers miss context. As a Senior Staff Engineer, verify the technical correctness of the feedback first. |
| "I'll batch all these small changes together." | Batching unrelated changes makes regressions hard to trace. Implement and test incrementally. |
| "This feedback doesn't make sense, but I'll guess what they mean." | Guessing leads to wasted work. Clarify ambiguity explicitly before changing code. |
Red Flags
- Implementing comments you do not fully understand.
- Changing multiple unrelated things in one pass.
- Assuming an external reviewer has full context.
- Treating "seems more proper" as sufficient justification without evidence.
- Agreeing with technically incorrect feedback to be polite.
Verification
- All feedback has been evaluated for technical correctness before implementation.
- Ambiguous feedback has been explicitly clarified.
- Changes were made incrementally and re-tested.
- Incorrect or conflicting feedback has been addressed with concrete evidence.
- The final code adheres to the standards of a Senior Staff Engineer.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
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 · 46 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A b361ae77e88f
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Threat-Vector-Security/guardian-agent (13 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 436 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
planning
ONLY for coordinated multi-artifact work: multiple workflows with dependencies, shared data-table schema/migration across tasks, or the user explicitly asked to review a plan first. If workflowbuildercreatetasks is not visible, load it via loadtool (search "create tasks"). Do NOT use for new one-off workflows…
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
no-bare-casts
Writing as in TypeScript or TSX production code, modifying a file that contains a bare as cast, silencing a type error with a cast, encountering as unknown as, or reviewing a cast site.
prowler-pr
Creates Pull Requests for Prowler following the project template and conventions. Trigger: When working on pull request requirements or creation (PR template sections, PR title Conventional Commits check, changelog gate/no-changelog label), or when inspecting PR-related GitHub workflows like conventional-commit.yml…
performance-lint-rules
Performance review guidance for Oxc linter rule implementations. Use only when reviewing Rust rule code under crates/oxclinter/src/rules/ or when explicitly auditing those rules for performance improvements.
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…