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 yinqd3/workbuddy-skills --skill receiving-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yinqd3/workbuddy-skillsWrote 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/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/receiving-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/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/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/receiving-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yinqd3/workbuddy-skills/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 | $0.00049 | $0.00538 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00054 |
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 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.
What it actually says
接收代码审查
概述
收到审查反馈后，正确分类、确认、逐项处理。不要让审查意见堆成山再一次性改。
处理流程
接收审查 → 分类问题 → 确认理解 → 逐项修复 → 请求重新审查
步骤 1：分类问题
将每个问题按严重程度分类：
| 严重程度 | 示例 | 处理 |
|---|---|---|
| 严重 | 逻辑错误、安全漏洞、数据丢失风险 | 立即修复 |
| 重要 | 性能问题、可维护性问题、测试缺失 | 优先修复 |
| 次要 | 命名建议、风格偏好 | 评估后决定 |
| 讨论 | 设计分歧、替代方案 | 先讨论再决定 |
步骤 2：确认理解
对每个你不确定的问题，先确认理解再动手：
- "确认一下，你是说 [你的理解]，对吗？"
- 不要假设自己理解了就改
步骤 3：逐项修复
- 一次修复一个类别的问题
- 每项修复后验证测试
- 用清晰提交信息
git commit -m "fix: address review - [简要描述修改]"
步骤 4：请求重新审查
修复完成后：
- 汇总修改清单
- 说明每个问题如何解决或为什么不改
- 派发
requesting-code-review重新审查变更部分
回复模板
审查反馈处理完毕：
严重问题 (N 个):
- [问题1]: [如何修复的]
- [问题2]: [如何修复的]
重要问题 (N 个):
- [问题1]: [如何修复的]
次要问题 (N 个):
- [问题1]: [采纳/不采纳及原因]
讨论问题 (N 个):
- [问题1]: [我的看法，等你确认]
请重新审查 [commit range] 的变更。
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 · 73 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 6ed8fda9baac
receiving-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository yinqd3/workbuddy-skills (6 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 538 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
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
agent-design-best-practices
Best practices for designing Claude Code agent files (.claude/agents/.md). This skill should be used when writing or reviewing agent markdown files to ensure proper design with focused domains, correct tool access, reusable definitions, and separation of capabilities from lifecycle. Combines Anthropic's official…
agent-cross-review
Structured cross-review protocol between specialized agents. Ensures scope alignment, priority calibration, and domain-aware feedback. Use when one agent reviews another's work, during handoffs, or when validating cross-cutting concerns.