{"id":"6c193315-b358-405d-9e5d-e37b1817b0dd","shortId":"8VNkwU","kind":"skill","title":"receiving-code-review","tagline":"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","description":"# Code Review Reception\n\n## Overview\n\n**Announce at start:** \"Receiving Code Review skill activated.\"\n\nCode review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.\n\n**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.\n\n## The Response Pattern\n\n```\nWHEN receiving code review feedback:\n\n1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting\n2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)\n3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality\n4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?\n5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback\n6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each\n```\n\n## Forbidden Responses\n\n**NEVER:**\n- \"You're absolutely right!\" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)\n- \"Great point!\" / \"Excellent feedback!\" (performative)\n- \"Let me implement that now\" (before verification)\n\n**INSTEAD:**\n- Restate the technical requirement\n- Ask clarifying questions\n- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong\n- Just start working (actions > words)\n\n## Handling Unclear Feedback\n\n```\nIF any item is unclear:\n  STOP - do not implement anything yet\n  ASK for clarification on unclear items\n\nWHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.\n```\n\n**Example:**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n\n❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later\n✅ RIGHT: \"I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.\"\n```\n\n## Source-Specific Handling\n\n### From your human partner\n- **Trusted** - implement after understanding\n- **Still ask** if scope unclear\n- **No performative agreement**\n- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment\n\n### From External Reviewers\n```\nBEFORE implementing:\n  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?\n  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?\n  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?\n  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?\n  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?\n\nIF suggestion seems wrong:\n  Push back with technical reasoning\n\nIF can't easily verify:\n  Say so: \"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?\"\n\nIF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:\n  Stop and discuss with your human partner first\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully\"\n\n## YAGNI Check for \"Professional\" Features\n\n```\nIF reviewer suggests \"implementing properly\":\n  grep codebase for actual usage\n\n  IF unused: \"This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?\"\n  IF used: Then implement properly\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it.\"\n\n## Implementation Order\n\n```\nFOR multi-item feedback:\n  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST\n  2. Then implement in this order:\n     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)\n     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)\n     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)\n  3. Test each fix individually\n  4. Verify no regressions\n```\n\n## When To Push Back\n\nPush back when:\n- Suggestion breaks existing functionality\n- Reviewer lacks full context\n- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)\n- Technically incorrect for this stack\n- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist\n- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions\n\n**How to push back:**\n- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness\n- Ask specific questions\n- Reference working tests/code\n- Involve your human partner if architectural\n\n**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** \"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K\"\n\n## Acknowledging Correct Feedback\n\nWhen feedback IS correct:\n```\n✅ \"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]\"\n✅ \"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location].\"\n✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]\n\n❌ \"You're absolutely right!\"\n❌ \"Great point!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for catching that!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for [anything]\"\n❌ ANY gratitude expression\n```\n\n**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.\n\n**If you catch yourself about to write \"Thanks\":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.\n\n## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback\n\nIf you pushed back and were wrong:\n```\n✅ \"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now.\"\n✅ \"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing.\"\n\n❌ Long apology\n❌ Defending why you pushed back\n❌ Over-explaining\n```\n\nState the correction factually and move on.\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n| Mistake | Fix |\n|---------|-----|\n| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |\n| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |\n| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |\n| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |\n| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |\n| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |\n| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |\n\n## Real Examples\n\n**Performative Agreement (Bad):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n❌ \"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that...\"\n```\n\n**Technical Verification (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n✅ \"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?\"\n```\n\n**YAGNI (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export\"\n✅ \"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?\"\n```\n\n**Unclear Item (Good):**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix items 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n✅ \"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing.\"\n```\n\n## GitHub Thread Replies\n\nWhen replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.\n\n## The Bottom Line\n\n**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**\n\nVerify. Question. Then implement.\n\nNo performative agreement. Technical rigor always.","tags":["receiving","code","review","coco","rkz91","agent-skills","agents-md","ai-agents","claude-code","codex","cursor","developer-tools"],"capabilities":["skill","source-rkz91","skill-receiving-code-review","topic-agent-skills","topic-agents-md","topic-ai-agents","topic-claude-code","topic-codex","topic-cursor","topic-developer-tools","topic-llm-tools","topic-mcp","topic-pm-tools","topic-product-management","topic-productivity"],"categories":["coco"],"synonyms":[],"warnings":[],"endpointUrl":"https://skills.sh/rkz91/coco/receiving-code-review","protocol":"skill","transport":"skills-sh","auth":{"type":"none","details":{"cli":"npx skills add rkz91/coco","source_repo":"https://github.com/rkz91/coco","install_from":"skills.sh"}},"qualityScore":"0.453","qualityRationale":"deterministic score 0.45 from registry signals: · indexed on github topic:agent-skills · 7 github stars · SKILL.md body (6,055 chars)","verified":false,"liveness":"unknown","lastLivenessCheck":null,"agentReviews":{"count":0,"score_avg":null,"cost_usd_avg":null,"success_rate":null,"latency_p50_ms":null,"narrative_summary":null,"summary_updated_at":null},"enrichmentModel":"deterministic:skill-github:v1","enrichmentVersion":1,"enrichedAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:08.700Z","embedding":null,"createdAt":"2026-05-18T13:21:41.640Z","updatedAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:08.700Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:08.700Z","tsv":"'-13':746 '-6':195,786 '/comments':833 '/pulls':831 '/replies':835 '1':74,194,198,208,222,265,411,785,789,798 '10.15':725 '13':729 '2':80,199,209,223,272,416,790,799 '3':89,200,210,224,277,434,791,800 '4':95,204,215,229,283,439,795,805 '5':102,205,216,231,289,796,807 '6':109,201,211,225,792,801 'absolut':123,544,708 'acknowledg':105,259,514 'act':652 'action':158,256,561 'activ':44 'actual':364 'add':402 'afoot':509 'agreement':29,253,647,700,862 'alway':865 'announc':37 'anyth':172,413,554 'anyway':691 'api':727,827 'apolog':626 'architectur':476,498 'ask':58,88,145,174,213,247,487,694 'assum':60,668 'avoid':676 'back':149,301,446,448,481,503,595,631 'backward':733 'bad':701 'batch':659 'blind':31,653 'block':422 'bottom':845 'break':274,424,451,674 'brief':522 'build':722 'bundl':739 'call':372,764 'care':350 'catch':528,550,576 'chang':526 'check':91,266,273,278,284,290,349,352,603,672,721 'circl':512 'clarif':176,227,803 'clarifi':146,412,683 'claude.md':126 'code':3,8,33,41,45,71,541,567,705,720 'codebas':93,101,271,362,657,762 'comfort':65,680 'comment':818,824,843 'common':642 'compat':734 'complet':76 'complex':430 'conflict':323,470 'context':295,457 'core':53 'correct':62,268,515,520,589,616,637,679 'csv':759 'current':281,735 'databas':756 'date':757 'decis':330,477 'defend':627 'defens':486 'delet':582 'descript':523 'direct':696 'discuss':333 'drop':744 'easili':308 'emot':51 'endpoint':369,766 'especi':14 'evalu':49,96,851 'exampl':189,698 'excel':130 'exist':275,452,469 'explain':634 'explicit':125 'export':760 'express':557 'extern':261,344,847 'factual':638 'featur':355,399,461 'feedback':10,16,73,77,131,162,345,410,516,518,573,848 'filter':758 'first':338,415,658,686 'fix':193,427,431,437,521,531,535,564,586,624,645,741,783 'follow':855 'forbidden':118 'full':294,456 'function':276,453 'gh':826 'github':810,820 'good':527,716,749,779 'grace':588 'gratitud':556 'great':128,546 'grep':361,761 'handl':160,237 'heard':571 'human':191,240,326,336,340,382,473,495,781 'id':740,834 'impl':736 'implement':12,32,57,110,135,171,188,207,243,264,282,359,379,404,418,609,654,682,751,809,859 'import':429 'incorrect':463 'individu':438 'initi':618 'inlin':816 'instead':140,587 'investigate/ask/proceed':321 'involv':493 'isn':370 'issu':423,530 'item':112,165,179,181,221,409,685,778,784 'k':513 'lack':455 'later':217 'legaci':704,719,731 'legacy/compatibility':467 'let':133,710 'level':841 'limit':693 'line':846 'locat':533 'logic':433 'long':625 'loud':505 'm':775 'may':182 'metric':753 'miss':776 'mistak':643,644 'move':640 'multi':408 'multi-item':407 'need':226,397,728,730,802 'never':120 'noth':763 'one':111,662 'order':405,421,853 'over-explain':632 'overview':36 'owner':829 'partial':185,681 'partner':192,241,327,337,341,383,474,496,782 'pattern':68 'perform':28,52,132,252,646,699,861 'platforms/versions':288 'point':129,547 'pr':832,842 'pre':745 'principl':54 'prior':329 'proceed':233,690 'profession':354 'proper':360,380,752 'push':148,300,445,447,480,502,594,630 'pushback':108,591,677 'question':21,147,489,857 're':122,543,615,707 'react':79 'read':75 'real':697 'realiti':94 'reason':107,152,279,304,468,484,623 'receiv':2,7,40,70 'receiving-code-review':1 'recept':35 'refactor':432 'refer':490 'regress':442 'relat':184 'remov':373,703,712,718,767 'repli':812,814,821 'repo':828,830 'report':390 'requir':22,47,83,144,649 'respond':103 'respons':67,119 'restat':82,141 'review':4,9,34,42,46,72,262,292,357,388,454,669,702,717,750,817 'right':124,218,545,601,671,709 'rigor':24,864 'rule':343,385 'say':310 'scope':249 'secur':425 'seem':17,298 'show':538,569 'signal':499 'simpl':426 'skeptic':347 'skill':43 'skill-receiving-code-review' 'skip':254 'social':64 'sound':98 'sourc':235 'source-rkz91' 'source-specif':234 'speak':562 'specif':236,488,529 'stack':466 'start':39,156 'state':584,635,648,692 'still':246 'stop':168,331 'strang':506 'suggest':13,297,358,450,849 'support':747 'target':723 'technic':20,23,48,61,97,104,143,151,258,267,303,462,483,678,714,863 'test':116,435,661,666 'tests/code':492 'thank':548,552,560,581 'thing':507,675 'thread':811,825 'time':115,665 'top':840 'top-level':839 'topic-agent-skills' 'topic-agents-md' 'topic-ai-agents' 'topic-claude-code' 'topic-codex' 'topic-cursor' 'topic-developer-tools' 'topic-llm-tools' 'topic-mcp' 'topic-pm-tools' 'topic-product-management' 'topic-productivity' 'track':754 'trust':242 'typo':428 'unclear':18,161,167,178,202,250,414,777,793 'uncomfort':501 'understand':81,186,197,220,245,293,619,788,797 'unus':367,460 'usag':365,773 'use':5,377,482 'verif':26,139,715 'verifi':55,90,309,315,440,611,655,689,856 'violat':127,458 'without':78,317,660 'word':86,159 'work':157,285,491 'write':580 'wrong':154,187,206,299,598,621,738 'x':318,604 'y':608 'yagni':351,375,459,748,769 'yet':173","prices":[{"id":"14f5d60a-e4ba-48df-9856-1c0aff2a8ed5","listingId":"6c193315-b358-405d-9e5d-e37b1817b0dd","amountUsd":"0","unit":"free","nativeCurrency":null,"nativeAmount":null,"chain":null,"payTo":null,"paymentMethod":"skill-free","isPrimary":true,"details":{"org":"rkz91","category":"coco","install_from":"skills.sh"},"createdAt":"2026-05-18T13:21:41.640Z"}],"sources":[{"listingId":"6c193315-b358-405d-9e5d-e37b1817b0dd","source":"github","sourceId":"rkz91/coco/receiving-code-review","sourceUrl":"https://github.com/rkz91/coco/tree/main/skills/receiving-code-review","isPrimary":false,"firstSeenAt":"2026-05-18T13:21:41.640Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:08.700Z"}],"details":{"listingId":"6c193315-b358-405d-9e5d-e37b1817b0dd","quickStartSnippet":null,"exampleRequest":null,"exampleResponse":null,"schema":null,"openapiUrl":null,"agentsTxtUrl":null,"citations":[],"useCases":[],"bestFor":[],"notFor":[],"kindDetails":{"org":"rkz91","slug":"receiving-code-review","github":{"repo":"rkz91/coco","stars":7,"topics":["agent-skills","agents-md","ai","ai-agents","claude-code","codex","cursor","developer-tools","llm-tools","mcp","pm-tools","product-management","productivity","prompt-engineering","workflow-automation"],"license":"mit","html_url":"https://github.com/rkz91/coco","pushed_at":"2026-04-26T01:51:27Z","description":"Open-source library of AI superpowers — 59 skills, 34 commands, 10 agents + 24 GSD subagents, 3 system bundles. An entire team, wherever your AI lives. Vendor-neutral across Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and any AGENTS.md tool.","skill_md_sha":"be90e60dc2efc2ac2ea80575794abef38c831313","skill_md_path":"skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md","default_branch":"main","skill_tree_url":"https://github.com/rkz91/coco/tree/main/skills/receiving-code-review"},"layout":"multi","source":"github","category":"coco","frontmatter":{"name":"receiving-code-review","description":"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"},"skills_sh_url":"https://skills.sh/rkz91/coco/receiving-code-review"},"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T19:14:08.700Z"}}