receiving-code-review
How to handle code review feedback with technical rigor. Use when receiving review comments from code-reviewer agent, PR reviews, or external feedback. Triggers on: 'review feedback', 'address review', 'fix review comments', 'code review response'.
What this skill does
# Receiving Code Review Skill
How to handle review feedback with technical rigor, not performative agreement.
## When to Apply
- After receiving code-reviewer agent output
- PR review comments from teammates or external reviewers
- External feedback on implementation decisions
- When told to "address review comments" or "fix review feedback"
## Response Pattern
READ -> UNDERSTAND -> VERIFY -> EVALUATE -> RESPOND -> IMPLEMENT
### READ
Read the full review. Don't skim, don't react immediately. Take in every comment before acting on any of them. Later comments may contradict or contextualize earlier ones.
### UNDERSTAND
For each issue, understand what's actually being flagged. Restate in your own words: "This comment is about X because Y." If you can't restate it, you don't understand it yet.
### VERIFY
Check if the reviewer's claim is factually correct. Read the code they reference. Don't assume they're right or wrong -- look at the actual code at `{file}:{line}`.
### EVALUATE
Is this a real issue? Does the suggested fix actually improve things? Is the effort justified given the impact? Not all feedback requires action.
### RESPOND
Technical response only:
- Agree with reasoning: "Correct. The null check is missing at line X. Fixing."
- Disagree with evidence: "The review flags X, but `{file}:{line}` shows Y handles this case."
- Ask for clarification: "The comment suggests X. Is the concern about safety or performance?"
### IMPLEMENT
Fix in order: clarify unclear items -> blocking issues -> simple fixes -> complex fixes. Test each fix independently before moving to the next.
## Forbidden Responses
These responses indicate you're people-pleasing, not engineering:
- **"You're absolutely right!"** -- Performative agreement without understanding
- **"Great point!"** -- Flattery is not technical discourse
- **"I'll fix that right away!"** -- Understand before acting
- **"Of course, makes total sense!"** -- Does it? Or are you people-pleasing?
Instead: "The review identifies X. Checking... [evidence]. This is correct because [reason]. Fixing."
Or: "The review suggests X, but [counter-evidence]. Keeping current approach because [reason]."
## Source-Specific Handling
| Source | Trust Level | Response Style |
|--------|------------|----------------|
| Human partner | High context | Clarify intent, implement thoughtfully |
| External reviewer | Medium context | Verify claims against code, ask about unknowns |
| code-reviewer agent | Systematic but no context | Cross-reference with requirements, verify specifics |
## When to Push Back
- **Technically incorrect** -- "The review suggests X, but the code at `{file}:{line}` shows Y"
- **YAGNI** -- "This adds complexity for a hypothetical scenario. Current implementation handles all existing cases"
- **Breaks existing functionality** -- "This change would break {specific behavior} because {evidence}"
- **Missing context** -- "The review assumes X, but the requirement specifies Y (see {reference})"
Pushing back is not adversarial. It's quality control. Reviewers benefit from knowing when their feedback misses context.
## Implementation Order
1. Clarify unclear items first (don't build on misunderstanding)
2. Blocking/critical issues (things that prevent the code from working)
3. Simple fixes (typos, naming, formatting)
4. Complex fixes (refactors, architectural changes)
5. Test each fix independently
## Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Why It's Wrong | Do This Instead |
|---------|---------------|-----------------|
| Fix everything without reading all comments | Later comments may contradict earlier ones | Read ALL comments first |
| Performative agreement | Hides misunderstanding | Respond with technical reasoning |
| Batch all fixes in one commit | Can't isolate if something breaks | One logical change per commit |
| Skip re-testing after fixes | Fixes introduce new bugs | Test after every change |
| Ignore minor issues | They accumulate | Fix or explicitly defer with reason |
## The Bottom Line
Review feedback is data, not judgment. Evaluate it technically, respond with evidence, implement with discipline.
Related in AI Agents
skill-development
IncludedComprehensive meta-skill for creating, managing, validating, auditing, and distributing Claude Code skills and slash commands (unified in v2.1.3+). Provides skill templates, creation workflows, validation patterns, audit checklists, naming conventions, YAML frontmatter guidance, progressive disclosure examples, and best practices lookup. Use when creating new skills, validating existing skills, auditing skill quality, understanding skill architecture, needing skill templates, learning about YAML frontmatter requirements, progressive disclosure patterns, tool restrictions (allowed-tools), skill composition, skill naming conventions, troubleshooting skill activation issues, creating custom slash commands, configuring command frontmatter, using command arguments ($ARGUMENTS, $1, $2), bash execution in commands, file references in commands, command namespacing, plugin commands, MCP slash commands, Skill tool configuration, or deciding between skills vs slash commands. Delegates to docs-management skill for official documentation.
reprompter
IncludedTransform messy prompts into well-structured, effective prompts — single or multi-agent. Use when: "reprompt", "reprompt this", "clean up this prompt", "structure my prompt", rough text needing XML tags and best practices, "reprompter teams", "repromptception", "run with quality", "smart run", "smart agents", multi-agent tasks, audits, parallel work, anything going to agent teams. Don't use when: simple Q&A, pure chat, immediate execution-only tasks. See "Don't Use When" section for details. Outputs: Structured XML/Markdown prompt, quality score (before/after), optional team brief + per-agent sub-prompts, agent team output files. Success criteria: Single mode quality score ≥ 7/10; Repromptception per-agent prompt quality score 8+/10; all required sections present, actionable and specific.
adaptive-compaction
IncludedAdaptive add-on policy and recovery layer that decides WHEN to compact, prune, snapshot, or fork -- replacing fixed-percent auto-compaction across Claude Code, Codex, and MCP-capable hosts. Trigger on auto-compact timing or damage: "when should I compact", "is it safe to compact now or start a fresh session", "auto-compact fires too early/mid-task", "switching to an unrelated task but the window still has space", "context rot", "answers get worse the longer the session runs", "the agent forgot the plan or my decisions after it summarized", "add a layer on top that manages context without changing the agent", raising autoCompactWindow to give the policy room, or installing/tuning a cross-tool compaction policy or PreCompact hook -- even when "compaction" is never said but the problem is context-window pressure or post-summarization memory loss. Do NOT use to summarize a conversation, build RAG, write a summarization prompt (decides WHEN not HOW), or answer max-context-length trivia.
agent-skill-creator
IncludedCreate cross-platform agent skills from workflow descriptions. Activates when users ask to create an agent, automate a repetitive workflow, create a custom skill, or need advanced agent creation. Triggers on phrases like create agent for, automate workflow, create skill for, every day I have to, daily I need to, turn process into agent, need to automate, create a cross-platform skill, validate this skill, export this skill, migrate this skill. Supports single skills, multi-agent suites, transcript processing, template-based creation, interactive configuration, cross-platform export, and spec validation.
llm-wiki
IncludedUse when building or maintaining a persistent personal knowledge base (second brain) in Obsidian where an LLM incrementally ingests sources, updates entity/concept pages, maintains cross-references, and keeps a synthesis current. Triggers include "second brain", "Obsidian wiki", "personal knowledge management", "ingest this paper/article/book", "build a research wiki", "compound knowledge", "Memex", or whenever the user wants knowledge to accumulate across sessions instead of being re-derived by RAG on every query.
skill-master
IncludedAgent Skills authoring, evaluation, and optimization. Create, edit, validate, benchmark, and improve skills following the agentskills.io specification. Use when designing SKILL.md files, structuring skill folders (references, scripts, assets), ingesting external documentation into skills, running trigger evals, benchmarking skill quality, optimizing descriptions, or performing blind A/B comparisons. Keywords: agentskills.io, SKILL.md, skill authoring, eval, benchmark, trigger optimization.