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 xiqin/loom --skill loom-receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xiqin/loomWrote 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/xiqin/loom/loom-receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xiqin/loom/loom-receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xiqin/loom/loom-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 5.1 | $0.00057 | $0.00919 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00460 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
loom-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 7d 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
接受代码审查
触发条件
- 收到代码审查反馈后触发
loom-requesting-code-review发出请求后，收到反馈时自动触发
完成条件与下一步
- 所有 BLOCKER 和必须修复项已处理
- 审查者确认通过
- 下一步：使用
loom-finishing-a-development-branch收尾分支
核心原则
技术严谨 > 社交舒适。 验证后再行动，不搞表演性同意。
审查反馈是需要技术评估的输入，不是情感表演的机会。
禁止的回复
永远不要：
- "你说得对！"（表演性同意）
- "好主意！"（无意义附和）
- "我马上改！"（未验证就行动）
应该：
- 重述技术要求
- 提出澄清问题
- 用技术推理 push back
- 直接行动（行动 > 语言）
正确的反馈回复：
✅ "已修复。[简述改动]"
✅ "好发现 - [具体问题]。已修复于 [位置]。"
✅ [直接修复，通过代码展示]
❌ "你说得对！"
❌ "好主意！"
反馈来源区分
- human partner：理解后直接实施，范围不清时确认，不附和
- 外部审查者：实施前必须验证技术正确性、兼容性和上下文完整性
详细检查清单见
references/response-templates.md
YAGNI 与 Push Back
- 审查者建议"properly implement"时，先 grep 确认是否真的在用；未使用则建议删除
- 建议破坏现有功能、缺乏上下文、违反 YAGNI、与架构决策冲突时，用技术推理 push back
- 不清楚的反馈：停止实施，先确认所有不清楚的项
完整 YAGNI 检查流程、push back 方式和不清楚反馈示例见
references/response-templates.md
执行流程
Step 1：理解审查反馈
- 逐一阅读审查意见
- 分类反馈：
- 必须修复：BLOCKER
- 建议修复：SUGGESTION
- 讨论：需要进一步讨论
Step 2：分类处理
BLOCKER（必须修复）：
- 理解问题
- 实施修复
- 验证修复
SUGGESTION（建议修复）：
- 评估建议的合理性
- 决定采纳或拒绝
- 如果拒绝，提供理由
讨论项：
- 与审查者沟通
- 达成共识
- 按共识处理
Step 3：实施修复
- 按审查意见修改代码
- 运行测试确保修复正确
- 提交修复
Step 4：回复审查
使用 references/response-templates.md 中的统一模板格式回复审查意见。
Step 5：再次提交
git add <modified-files>
git commit -m "fix: 根据审查反馈修复 xxx"
git push
约束
- BLOCKER 必须全部修复
- SUGGESTION 必须明确回复采纳或拒绝
- 拒绝建议时必须提供理由
- 修复后必须重新运行测试
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 120 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 8e41aa5dc061
loom-receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository xiqin/loom (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 919 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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…