receiving-code-review

Original：🇨🇳 Chinese

Translated

Use this when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially when feedback seems unclear or technically problematic - requires technical rigor and verification, not protocol execution or blind implementation

8installs

Sourcezhucl1006/ailesuperpowers

Added on2026-02-25

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add zhucl1006/ailesuperpowers receiving-code-review

SKILL.md Content (Chinese)

View Translation Comparison →

Code Review Reception

Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional expression.

Core Principles: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness takes precedence over social comfort.

Response Mode

WHEN receiving code review feedback:

1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each

Forbidden Responses

Never:

“You're absolutely right!” (obvious CLAUDE.md vulnerability)
“Great point!” /“Very good feedback!” (protocol execution)
“Let me implement this now” (before verification)

Instead:

Restate technical requirements
Ask clarifying questions
Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
Start working (actions > words)

Handling Unclear Feedback

IF any item is unclear:
  STOP - do not implement anything yet
  ASK for clarification on unclear items

WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

Example:

your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."

Specific Source Handling

From Your Human Partner

Trustworthy - Implement after understanding
Still ask if scope is unclear
No protocol execution
Jump to action or technical confirmation

From External Reviewers

BEFORE implementing:
  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?

IF suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

IF can't easily verify:
  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"

IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first

Your Human Partner's Rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

YAGNI Review for "Professional" Features

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  grep codebase for actual usage

  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
  IF used: Then implement properly

Your Human Partner's Rule: "You and the reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."

Implementation Order

FOR multi-item feedback:
  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
  2. Then implement in this order:
     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
  3. Test each fix individually
  4. Verify no regressions

When to Push Back

Push back in the following cases:

Suggestion breaks existing functionality
Reviewer lacks full context
Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
Technically incorrect for the stack
Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
Conflicts with human partner's architectural decisions

How to Push Back:

Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
Ask specific questions
Reference working tests/code
Involve your human partner if it's architectural

If you feel uncomfortable: Shout out "Circle K is acting weird"

Confirming Correct Feedback

When feedback is correct:

✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]

❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression

Why No Thanks: Actions speak louder. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

If you catch yourself writing "Thanks": Delete it. State the fix instead.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."

❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining

State the correction matter-of-factly and move on.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Protocol execution	State requirement or action
Blind implementation	Verify against codebase first
Batching without testing	One at a time, test each
Assuming reviewer is correct	Check if it breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first
Can't verify but proceed	State limitation, ask for guidance

Real Examples

Protocol Execution (Bad):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

Technical Verification (Good):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "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?"

YAGNI (Good):

Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"

Unclear Items (Good):

your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."

GitHub Thread Replies

When replying to inline comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies