receiving-code-review

Name: receiving-code-review
Author: jamditis

336stars57forks

How to install receiving-code-review?

jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/receiving-code-review

$npx -y skills add jamditis/claude-skills-journalism --skill receiving-code-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

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

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	<!--
2	Adapted from obra/superpowers receiving-code-review skill (v5.0.7),
3	MIT-licensed, copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent. Modifications copyright 2026 Joe Amditis. v0.4.0 ports as a consumer category — no research
4	phase per the v0.2.0 architecture, since verification-against-codebase
5	is already step 3 of the existing flow; review-evaluation is
6	per-comment, not entry-point work.
7	See CREDITS.md.
8	-->
9
10	# Code Review Reception
11
12	## Overview
13
14	Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
15
16	Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
17
18	## The Response Pattern
19
20	```
21	WHEN receiving code review feedback:
22
23	1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
24	2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
25	3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
26	4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
27	5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
28	6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
29	```
30
31	## Forbidden Responses
32
33	NEVER:
34	- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
35	- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
36	- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
37
38	INSTEAD:
39	- Restate the technical requirement
40	- Ask clarifying questions
41	- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
42	- Just start working (actions > words)
43
44	## Handling Unclear Feedback
45
46	```
47	IF any item is unclear:
48	STOP - do not implement anything yet
49	ASK for clarification on unclear items
50
51	WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
52	```
53
54	Example:
55	```
56	your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
57	You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
58
59	❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
60	✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
61	```
62
63	## Source-Specific Handling
64
65	### From your human partner
66	- Trusted - implement after understanding
67	- Still ask if scope unclear
68	- No performative agreement
69	- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
70
71	### From External Reviewers
72	```
73	BEFORE implementing:
74	1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
75	2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
76	3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
77	4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
78	5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
79
80	IF suggestion seems wrong:
81	Push back with technical reasoning
82
83	IF can't easily verify:
84	Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
85
86	IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
87	Stop and discuss with your human partner first
88	```
89
90	your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
91
92	## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
93
94	```
95	IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
96	grep codebase for actual usage
97
98	IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
99	IF used: Then implement properly
100	```
101
102	your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
103
104	## Implementation Order
105
106	```
107	FOR multi-item feedback:
108	1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
109	2. Then implement in this order:
110	- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
111	- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
112	- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
113	3. Test each fix individually
114	4. Verify no regressions
115	```
116
117	## When To Push Back
118
119	Push back when:
120	- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
121	- Reviewer lacks full context
122	- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
123	- Technically incorrect for this stack
124	- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
125	- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
126
127	How to push back:
128	- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
129	- Ask specific questions
130	- Reference working tests/code
131	- Involve your human partner if architectural
132
133	Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
134
135	## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
136
137	When feedback IS correct:
138	```
139	✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
140	✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
141	✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
142
143	❌ "You're absolutely right!"
144	❌ "Great point!"
145	❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
146	❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
147	❌ ANY gratitude expression
148	```
149
150	Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
151
152	If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
153
154	## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
155
156	If you pushed back and were wrong:
157	```
158	✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
159	✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
160
161	❌ Long apology
162	❌ Defending why you pushed back
163	❌ Over-explainin

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

receiving-code-review

336stars57forks

View on GitHub

How to install receiving-code-review?

jamditis/claude-skills-journalism/receiving-code-review

$npx -y skills add jamditis/claude-skills-journalism --skill receiving-code-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	<!--
2	Adapted from obra/superpowers receiving-code-review skill (v5.0.7),
3	MIT-licensed, copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent. Modifications copyright 2026 Joe Amditis. v0.4.0 ports as a consumer category — no research
4	phase per the v0.2.0 architecture, since verification-against-codebase
5	is already step 3 of the existing flow; review-evaluation is
6	per-comment, not entry-point work.
7	See CREDITS.md.
8	-->
9
10	# Code Review Reception
11
12	## Overview
13
14	Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
15
16	Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
17
18	## The Response Pattern
19
20	```
21	WHEN receiving code review feedback:
22
23	1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
24	2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
25	3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
26	4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
27	5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
28	6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
29	```
30
31	## Forbidden Responses
32
33	NEVER:
34	- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
35	- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
36	- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
37
38	INSTEAD:
39	- Restate the technical requirement
40	- Ask clarifying questions
41	- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
42	- Just start working (actions > words)
43
44	## Handling Unclear Feedback
45
46	```
47	IF any item is unclear:
48	STOP - do not implement anything yet
49	ASK for clarification on unclear items
50
51	WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
52	```
53
54	Example:
55	```
56	your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
57	You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
58
59	❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
60	✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
61	```
62
63	## Source-Specific Handling
64
65	### From your human partner
66	- Trusted - implement after understanding
67	- Still ask if scope unclear
68	- No performative agreement
69	- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
70
71	### From External Reviewers
72	```
73	BEFORE implementing:
74	1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
75	2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
76	3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
77	4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
78	5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
79
80	IF suggestion seems wrong:
81	Push back with technical reasoning
82
83	IF can't easily verify:
84	Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
85
86	IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
87	Stop and discuss with your human partner first
88	```
89
90	your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
91
92	## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
93
94	```
95	IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
96	grep codebase for actual usage
97
98	IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
99	IF used: Then implement properly
100	```
101
102	your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
103
104	## Implementation Order
105
106	```
107	FOR multi-item feedback:
108	1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
109	2. Then implement in this order:
110	- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
111	- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
112	- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
113	3. Test each fix individually
114	4. Verify no regressions
115	```
116
117	## When To Push Back
118
119	Push back when:
120	- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
121	- Reviewer lacks full context
122	- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
123	- Technically incorrect for this stack
124	- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
125	- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
126
127	How to push back:
128	- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
129	- Ask specific questions
130	- Reference working tests/code
131	- Involve your human partner if architectural
132
133	Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
134
135	## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
136
137	When feedback IS correct:
138	```
139	✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
140	✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
141	✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
142
143	❌ "You're absolutely right!"
144	❌ "Great point!"
145	❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
146	❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
147	❌ ANY gratitude expression
148	```
149
150	Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
151
152	If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
153
154	## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
155
156	If you pushed back and were wrong:
157	```
158	✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
159	✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
160
161	❌ Long apology
162	❌ Defending why you pushed back
163	❌ Over-explainin

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type