receiving-code-review

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

> **Pipeline position:** post-merge feedback loop — see [`../../reference/pipeline-flow.md`](../../reference/pipeline-flow.md).

# Code Review Reception

## Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

## Commands

- list all comments `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments`
- see replies to a specific comment `gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`

## The Response Pattern

```
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!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

**INSTEAD:**

- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions using the AskUserQuestion tool
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just 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."
```

When clear what to implement always use the Task API (TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskList, TaskGet ...) to structure each fix

## Source-Specific Handling

### From your human partner

- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
- **Still ask** if scope unclear
- **No performative agreement**
- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment

### 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 Check 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 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

From Fleron/Claude-plugins, MIT.

More from Fleron/Claude-plugins