← Back to list
🛠️

receiving-code-review Checked

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback …
🛠️ Developer Tools skills By obra Version v1.0.0 Added 2026-09-07 Updated 2026-09-07 Source ↗
8.3Overall rating
2Views
6Downloads
282.5kStars

Installation

🤖 Install via AI

Copy the prompt below and send it to your AI assistant (e.g. Claude Code) — it will follow the instructions and install automatically.

Install the "receiving-code-review" skill by following the instructions at https://skill123.me/install/receiving-code-review.
⌨️ Command line install

Run in your terminal — downloads and installs to ~/.claude/skills/.

curl -fsSL https://skill123.me/install/receiving-code-review.sh | bash
📦 Download ZIP

Download the zip and extract it into your skills directory (e.g. ~/.claude/skills/), then restart your session.

⬇ Download v1.0.0 · 3 KB
📊 Static rating
8.3/10
Trigger
5.5
Structure
8.7
Workflow
8.4
Content
8.0
Engineering
10.0
Security
10.0

Six-dimension rubric with reviewer rationale.

View scorecard ↓
🛡 Dynamic test
—

Not live-tested yet — this skill is rated on static analysis only.

About this skill

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

Code Review Reception

Documentation

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

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.

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 instruction-file violation)
  • "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
  • "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

**INSTEAD:**

  • Restate the technical requirement
  • Ask clarifying questions
  • 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."

Score breakdown

Trigger
5.5
Rich When conditions and anti-pattern framing, but no explicit When-Not and limited synonym coverage.
Structure
8.7
Single 205-line file, appropriately sized, no redundant files; no offload structure needed or provided.
Workflow
8.4
Six-step response pattern, source-trust tiers, YAGNI gate, ordered implementation with per-fix testing and stop-and-ask guards.
Content
8.0
Crisp tables and good/bad examples; few executable commands and quirky your-human-partner phrasing throughout.
Engineering
10.0
Valid frontmatter; no scripts; no file path references to verify.
Security
10.0
Only a benign gh api reply example; no network egress, injection, or secrets.
Behavioral skill with a clear 6-step reception pattern, source-specific trust rules, YAGNI checks and pushback criteria; single-file design works, but commands are sparse and phrasing carries source-workspace quirks.