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/vimalk0703/shipworthy/receiving-code-reviewnpx skills add Vimalk0703/shipworthy --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Vimalk0703/shipworthyWrote 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/vimalk0703/shipworthy/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/receiving-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.00432 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00216 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00043 |
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 4d 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.
What it actually says
Receiving Code Review
Core Principle
Technical verification over performative agreement. Don't accept feedback just because it comes from a reviewer. Verify that the feedback is correct before acting on it.
Processing Feedback
For each issue raised:
1. Understand the Issue
Read the feedback carefully. What exactly is the concern? Is it about correctness, style, architecture, or performance?
2. Verify the Claim
- If the reviewer says "this will break when X": test it. Does X actually cause a break?
- If the reviewer says "this violates architecture rule Y": check architecture.md. Does it?
- If the reviewer suggests "use pattern Z instead": is pattern Z actually better here?
3. Respond with Evidence
If the feedback is correct:
- Fix the issue
- Show the fix with test evidence
- Thank the reviewer for catching it
If the feedback is incorrect:
- Explain why with evidence (test results, documentation, architecture.md)
- Don't be confrontational — provide facts
- If it's a judgment call, explain your reasoning
If the feedback is partially correct:
- Acknowledge the valid part and fix it
- Explain why the other part doesn't apply
Anti-Patterns
- Performative agreement — "Yes, you're right, I'll fix that" without verifying
- Defensive rejection — dismissing feedback without investigation
- Scope creep — using review feedback as an excuse to refactor unrelated code
- Fix-and-forget — fixing the symptom without understanding the root cause
After Addressing All Feedback
- Run the full test suite
- Verify all Critical and Important issues are resolved
- Summarize what was changed and why
- Request re-review if significant changes were made
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 54 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 4d0bc427f656
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Vimalk0703/shipworthy (7 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 432 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
hedgehog-core-design
Use on full-stack-app and landing-page alike only when neither shipped core fits a project that is still building something real — picks the stack and designs the layer sequence for it, and writes .hedgehog/core.yaml. Invoked by the planner agent as Phase 0's third outcome, after the vendored BMAD shelf has run; don't…
hedgehog-planning-intake
Use on any core for first-run planning intake — Phase 0 runs the vendored BMAD-METHOD planning shelf, shared by every core, and Phase 1 (mining 04-prd.md into intent records plus the Add-ons/sync-and-remote-entities decision) is full-stack-app's and pwa-app's shared procedure — identical mechanics, a different…
inbound-triage
Maintainer-only. Use when triaging inbound GitHub issues and pull requests on skyf0xx/hedgehog — "triage the issues", "check the PRs", "review inbound", "what's in the queue". Reads each item read-only, judges it for security and for whether it is real, then fixes and closes or comments and closes. Not part of the…
bmad-product-brief
Create, update, or validate a product brief. Use when the user wants help producing, editing, or validating a brief.
bmad-revendor
Maintainer-only. Use when re-vendoring vendor-skills/BMAD/ against a newer BMAD-METHOD commit — "update BMAD", "re-vendor BMAD", "bump the BMAD pin". Not part of the Hedgehog discipline a consuming project copies; this only applies to the Hedgehog repo itself.
bmad-deep-recon
Decision-grade research, three ways: draft a deep-research prompt for the user to run in their own tool (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity, …), process a finished research report — file it, distill a succinct cited summary with metadata that downstream skills consume without reprocessing — or run the research here…