Code Review Reception
Unverified●31/40Claude Code◐PartialHas SKILL.md but declares no allowed-tools — Claude Code will ask for permission each time
Cursor◐PartialPlain prose you can paste in — but no Cursor rules file
Codex◐PartialPlain prose you can paste in — but no AGENTS.md
Gemini CLI◐PartialPlain prose you can paste in
Copilot◐PartialPlain prose you can paste in — but no Copilot instructions file
npx agentalley add receiving-code-reviewWho is stuck, and on what
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
The whole source
Frontmatter — 2 properties
| name | receiving-code-review |
|---|---|
| description | 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 |
| 1 | --- |
| 2 | name: receiving-code-review |
| 3 | description: 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 |
| 4 | ---A5 — No allowed-tools declared — no way to tell what this skill may touch |
| 5 | |
| 6 | # Code Review Reception |
| 7 | |
| 8 | ## Overview |
| 9 | |
| 10 | Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | **Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort. |
| 13 | |
| 14 | ## The Response Pattern |
| 15 | |
| 16 | ``` |
| 17 | WHEN receiving code review feedback: |
| 18 | |
| 19 | 1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting |
| 20 | 2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask) |
| 21 | 3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality |
| 22 | 4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase? |
| 23 | 5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback |
| 24 | 6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each |
| 25 | ``` |
| 26 | |
| 27 | ## Forbidden Responses |
| 28 | |
| 29 | **NEVER:** |
| 30 | - "You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file violation) |
| 31 | - "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative) |
| 32 | - "Let me implement that now" (before verification) |
| 33 | |
| 34 | **INSTEAD:** |
| 35 | - Restate the technical requirement |
| 36 | - Ask clarifying questions |
| 37 | - Push back with technical reasoning if wrong |
| 38 | - Just start working (actions > words) |
| 39 | |
| 40 | ## Handling Unclear Feedback |
| 41 | |
| 42 | ``` |
| 43 | IF any item is unclear: |
| 44 | STOP - do not implement anything yet |
| 45 | ASK for clarification on unclear items |
| 46 | |
| 47 | WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation. |
| 48 | ``` |
| 49 | |
| 50 | **Example:** |
| 51 | ``` |
| 52 | your human partner: "Fix 1-6" |
| 53 | You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5. |
| 54 | |
| 55 | ❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later |
| 56 | ✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding." |
| 57 | ``` |
| 58 | |
| 59 | ## Source-Specific Handling |
| 60 | |
| 61 | ### From your human partner |
| 62 | - **Trusted** - implement after understanding |
| 63 | - **Still ask** if scope unclear |
| 64 | - **No performative agreement** |
| 65 | - **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment |
| 66 | |
| 67 | ### From External Reviewers |
| 68 | ``` |
| 69 | BEFORE implementing: |
| 70 | 1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase? |
| 71 | 2. Check: Breaks existing functionality? |
| 72 | 3. Check: Reason for current implementation? |
| 73 | 4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions? |
| 74 | 5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context? |
| 75 | |
| 76 | IF suggestion seems wrong: |
| 77 | Push back with technical reasoning |
| 78 | |
| 79 | IF can't easily verify: |
| 80 | Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?" |
| 81 | |
| 82 | IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions: |
| 83 | Stop and discuss with your human partner first |
| 84 | ``` |
| 85 | |
| 86 | **your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully" |
| 87 | |
| 88 | ## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features |
| 89 | |
| 90 | ``` |
| 91 | IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly": |
| 92 | grep codebase for actual usage |
| 93 | |
| 94 | IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?" |
| 95 | IF used: Then implement properly |
| 96 | ``` |
| 97 | |
| 98 | **your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it." |
| 99 | |
| 100 | ## Implementation Order |
| 101 | |
| 102 | ``` |
| 103 | FOR multi-item feedback: |
| 104 | 1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST |
| 105 | 2. Then implement in this order: |
| 106 | - Blocking issues (breaks, security) |
| 107 | - Simple fixes (typos, imports) |
| 108 | - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic) |
| 109 | 3. Test each fix individually |
| 110 | 4. Verify no regressions |
| 111 | ``` |
| 112 | |
| 113 | ## When To Push Back |
| 114 | |
| 115 | Push back when: |
| 116 | - Suggestion breaks existing functionality |
| 117 | - Reviewer lacks full context |
| 118 | - Violates YAGNI (unused feature) |
| 119 | - Technically incorrect for this stack |
| 120 | - Legacy/compatibility reasons exist |
| 121 | - Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions |
| 122 | |
| 123 | **How to push back:** |
| 124 | - Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness |
| 125 | - Ask specific questions |
| 126 | - Reference working tests/code |
| 127 | - Involve your human partner if architectural |
| 128 | |
| 129 | **If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty. |
| 130 | |
| 131 | ## Acknowledging Correct Feedback |
| 132 | |
| 133 | When feedback IS correct: |
| 134 | ``` |
| 135 | ✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]" |
| 136 | ✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]." |
| 137 | ✅ [Just fix it and show in the code] |
| 138 | |
| 139 | ❌ "You're absolutely right!" |
| 140 | ❌ "Great point!" |
| 141 | ❌ "Thanks for catching that!" |
| 142 | ❌ "Thanks for [anything]" |
| 143 | ❌ ANY gratitude expression |
| 144 | ``` |
| 145 | |
| 146 | **Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback. |
| 147 | |
| 148 | **If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead. |
| 149 | |
| 150 | ## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback |
| 151 | |
| 152 | If you pushed back and were wrong: |
| 153 | ``` |
| 154 | ✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." |
| 155 | ✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing." |
| 156 | |
| 157 | ❌ Long apology |
| 158 | ❌ Defending why you pushed back |
| 159 | ❌ Over-explaining |
| 160 | ``` |
| 161 | |
| 162 | State the correction factually and move on. |
| 163 | |
| 164 | ## Common Mistakes |
| 165 | |
| 166 | | Mistake | Fix | |
| 167 | |---------|-----| |
| 168 | | Performative agreement | State requirement or just act | |
| 169 | | Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first | |
| 170 | | Batch without testing | One at a time, test each | |
| 171 | | Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things | |
| 172 | | Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort | |
| 173 | | Partial implementation | Clarify all items first | |
| 174 | | Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction | |
| 175 | |
| 176 | ## Real Examples |
| 177 | |
| 178 | **Performative Agreement (Bad):** |
| 179 | ``` |
| 180 | Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" |
| 181 | ❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..." |
| 182 | ``` |
| 183 | |
| 184 | **Technical Verification (Good):** |
| 185 | ``` |
| 186 | Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" |
| 187 | ✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?" |
| 188 | ``` |
| 189 | |
| 190 | **YAGNI (Good):** |
| 191 | ``` |
| 192 | Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export" |
| 193 | ✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?" |
| 194 | ``` |
| 195 | |
| 196 | **Unclear Item (Good):** |
| 197 | ``` |
| 198 | your human partner: "Fix items 1-6" |
| 199 | You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5. |
| 200 | ✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing." |
| 201 | ``` |
| 202 | |
| 203 | ## GitHub Thread Replies |
| 204 | |
| 205 | When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment. |
| 206 |
Reviews
Installed this one?Write the first review and take the Trailblazer badge.
Alternatives
Subagent Driven DevelopmentUse when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session◐◐◐◐◐●36/40Python Code Style & DocumentationPython code style, linting, formatting, naming conventions, and documentation standards. Use when writing new code, reviewing style, configuring linters, writing docstrings, or establishing project standards.◐····●35/40Competitor Price Analysis 💲Competitor pricing strategy analysis and market positioning. Price mapping, pricing gaps identification, elasticity signals evaluation, and strategic pricing optimization. Use when the user asks about competitor pricing, price analysis, pricing strategy, or co◐····●34/40Competitor Price Tracker 📊Set up competitor price tracking and monitoring workflows. Track price changes, detect promotions, analyze pricing patterns, and get alerts for competitive price movements.◐····●34/40