What is receiving-code-review?

A set of instructions for handling code review comments by understanding and verifying them before making changes. TDD means test-driven development, where tests guide implementation; this add-on does not specifically require TDD.

Read review comments, restate their technical meaning, check the code, explain disagreements, and implement accepted suggestions one at a time with testing.

It helps prevent blindly applying feedback that may be unclear, incorrect, or unsuitable for the codebase.

receiving-code-review — Skill for Claude Code and Codex by transparent-pegasus: A set of instructions for handling code review comments…

Install

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.

agentmods

npx agentmods add skills/transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers/receiving-code-review

Any agent

npx skills add transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers --skill receiving-code-review

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Or install herdrpowers, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 16 skills, 7 commands.

Wrote 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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers/receiving-code-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers/receiving-code-review)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Per session 38 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.

When invoked 1,518 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.

Origin 98% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00038	$0.01518
Opus 5	$0.00019	$0.00759
Sonnet 5	$0.00008	$0.00304
Haiku 4.5	$0.00004	$0.00152

Measured 5d ago against content hash d437ef2c3eb8, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-05, from the pricing page.

Security

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 5d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

98% identical to receiving-code-review — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md · 211 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 211 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Review Reception

Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

The Response Pattern

WHEN receiving code review feedback:

1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each

Codegraph is optional: If a codegraph plugin/tool is available, use search, callers, callees, and impact queries while verifying review feedback. If it is unavailable, use ordinary repo search and file reads; do not accept or reject feedback based on unavailable tooling.

Forbidden Responses

NEVER:

"You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file violation)
"Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
"Let me implement that now" (before verification)

INSTEAD:

Restate the technical requirement
Ask clarifying questions
Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
Just start working (actions > words)

Handling Unclear Feedback

IF any item is unclear:
  STOP - do not implement anything yet
  ASK for clarification on unclear items

WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

Example:

your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."

Source-Specific Handling

From your human partner

Trusted - implement after understanding
Still ask if scope unclear
No performative agreement
Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From External Reviewers

BEFORE implementing:
  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?

IF suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

IF can't easily verify:
  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"

IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first

Read the full file on GitHub · 211 lines

Changes

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.

5d ago First seen · 211 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A d437ef2c3eb8

Subscribe to this mod's changes

receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository transparent-pegasus/herdrpowers (11 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,518 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to receiving-code-review, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.

Code review agentic-ai ai-agent cli developer-tools herdr superpowers

worker-integration

Worker-Agent integration for intelligent task dispatch and performance tracking.

ruvnet/ruflo · 14 tokens

foundry-config-setup

Resolve missing setup caused by a hardcoded Foundry project endpoint or model in a sample. Use when a sample fails because it uses a placeholder/hardcoded projectendpoint (for example "https://your-project.services.ai.azure.com") or a hardcoded model instead of reading them from the environment.

microsoft/agent-framework · 65 tokens

receiving-code-review