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 tmchow/tmc-marketplace --skill fix-code-review-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tmchow/tmc-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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/fix-code-review-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/fix-code-review-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/fix-code-review-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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/fix-code-review-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/fix-code-review-feedback.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01681 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00840 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00336 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00168 |
Grade A, and why
fix-code-review-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 9d 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 — 277 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
fix-code-review-feedback
Address code review feedback from local review agents or GitHub PRs.
This skill fixes feedback, not generates it. Use code review agents to get feedback first, then use this skill to address it.
Core Principles
Agent time is cheap. Tech debt is expensive.
- Fix everything valid - Including nitpicks. Don't carry debt forward.
- Reviewers can be wrong - Verify concerns exist before fixing.
- Quote feedback in replies - Provide context for what was addressed.
Mode Detection
| Trigger | Mode |
|---|---|
| Code review agent just provided feedback in conversation | Local Mode (auto-invoke) |
/fix-code-review-feedback with no args |
PR Mode - Full (current branch's PR) |
| User provides link to specific comment/thread | PR Mode - Targeted (only that feedback) |
| Ambiguous | Ask user |
Targeted mode: When user provides a specific feedback URL, ONLY address that feedback. Do not fetch or evaluate other PR feedback unless user explicitly asks.
Local Mode (Post-Review Agent)
When a code review agent has just provided feedback:
1. Parse Feedback
Extract issues from the conversation - typically file:line references with descriptions.
2. Evaluate Each Item
| Category | Action |
|---|---|
| ✅ Valid concern | Fix (possibly with better approach than suggested) |
| ⚠️ Valid concern, bad suggestion | Fix differently |
| ❌ Invalid (misread code, already handled) | Skip with explanation |
| 🤔 Uncertain | Ask user |
3. Fix All Valid Issues
Read files, implement fixes, verify they work. Do not commit yet.
4. Batch Commit
After ALL fixes are implemented, create a single commit:
git add -A
git commit -m "Address code review feedback
- [list all changes]"
Report what was fixed vs. skipped (with reasons).
PR Mode (GitHub Feedback)
1. Determine Scope
No arguments → Get current branch's PR:
gh pr view --json number,headRefName,baseRefName,url,author
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 277 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 81239574712a
fix-code-review-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository tmchow/tmc-marketplace (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,681 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…