{"id":"c43fba21-277a-4a74-b46a-2b6a7b2e5619","shortId":"NWaWyN","kind":"skill","title":"receiving-code-review","tagline":"Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing suggestions, especially when feedback is unclear, risky, disputed, or technically questionable.","description":"# Code Review Reception\n\n## Overview\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","aegis","ganyuanran","add","agent-skills","ai-agents","ai-coding","baseline-first","claude-code","codex"],"capabilities":["skill","source-ganyuanran","skill-receiving-code-review","topic-add","topic-agent-skills","topic-ai-agents","topic-ai-coding","topic-baseline-first","topic-claude-code","topic-codex","topic-coding-agents","topic-evidence-driven","topic-first-principles","topic-opencode","topic-software-architecture"],"categories":["Aegis"],"synonyms":[],"warnings":[],"endpointUrl":"https://skills.sh/GanyuanRan/Aegis/receiving-code-review","protocol":"skill","transport":"skills-sh","auth":{"type":"none","details":{"cli":"npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis","source_repo":"https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis","install_from":"skills.sh"}},"qualityScore":"0.581","qualityRationale":"deterministic score 0.58 from registry signals: · indexed on github topic:agent-skills · 262 github stars · SKILL.md body (5,990 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":"2026-05-18T18:54:49.784Z","embedding":null,"createdAt":"2026-05-04T19:05:08.487Z","updatedAt":"2026-05-18T18:54:49.784Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-05-18T18:54:49.784Z","tsv":"'-13':729 '-6':178,769 '/comments':816 '/pulls':814 '/replies':818 '1':57,177,181,191,205,248,394,768,772,781 '10.15':708 '13':712 '2':63,182,192,206,255,399,773,782 '3':72,183,193,207,260,417,774,783 '4':78,187,198,212,266,422,778,788 '5':85,188,199,214,272,779,790 '6':92,184,194,208,775,784 'absolut':106,527,691 'acknowledg':88,242,497 'act':635 'action':141,239,544 'actual':347 'add':385 'afoot':492 'agreement':236,630,683,845 'alway':848 'anyth':155,396,537 'anyway':674 'api':710,810 'apolog':609 'architectur':459,481 'ask':41,71,128,157,196,230,470,677 'assum':43,651 'avoid':659 'back':132,284,429,431,464,486,578,614 'backward':716 'bad':684 'batch':642 'blind':636 'block':405 'bottom':828 'break':257,407,434,657 'brief':505 'build':705 'bundl':722 'call':355,747 'care':333 'catch':511,533,559 'chang':509 'check':74,249,256,261,267,273,332,335,586,655,704 'circl':495 'clarif':159,210,786 'clarifi':129,395,666 'claude.md':109 'code':3,8,24,28,54,524,550,688,703 'codebas':76,84,254,345,640,745 'comfort':48,663 'comment':801,807,826 'common':625 'compat':717 'complet':59 'complex':413 'conflict':306,453 'context':278,440 'core':36 'correct':45,251,498,503,572,599,620,662 'csv':742 'current':264,718 'databas':739 'date':740 'decis':313,460 'defend':610 'defens':469 'delet':565 'descript':506 'direct':679 'discuss':316 'disput':20 'drop':727 'easili':291 'emot':34 'endpoint':352,749 'especi':14 'evalu':32,79,834 'exampl':172,681 'excel':113 'exist':258,435,452 'explain':617 'explicit':108 'export':743 'express':540 'extern':244,327,830 'factual':621 'featur':338,382,444 'feedback':10,16,56,60,114,145,328,393,499,501,556,831 'filter':741 'first':321,398,641,669 'fix':176,410,414,420,504,514,518,547,569,607,628,724,766 'follow':838 'forbidden':101 'full':277,439 'function':259,436 'gh':809 'github':793,803 'good':510,699,732,762 'grace':571 'gratitud':539 'great':111,529 'grep':344,744 'handl':143,220 'heard':554 'human':174,223,309,319,323,365,456,478,764 'id':723,817 'impl':719 'implement':12,40,93,118,154,171,190,226,247,265,342,362,387,401,592,637,665,734,792,842 'import':412 'incorrect':446 'individu':421 'initi':601 'inlin':799 'instead':123,570 'investigate/ask/proceed':304 'involv':476 'isn':353 'issu':406,513 'item':95,148,162,164,204,392,668,761,767 'k':496 'lack':438 'later':200 'legaci':687,702,714 'legacy/compatibility':450 'let':116,693 'level':824 'limit':676 'line':829 'locat':516 'logic':416 'long':608 'loud':488 'm':758 'may':165 'metric':736 'miss':759 'mistak':626,627 'move':623 'multi':391 'multi-item':390 'need':209,380,711,713,785 'never':103 'noth':746 'one':94,645 'order':388,404,836 'over-explain':615 'overview':27 'owner':812 'partial':168,664 'partner':175,224,310,320,324,366,457,479,765 'pattern':51 'perform':35,115,235,629,682,844 'platforms/versions':271 'point':112,530 'pr':815,825 'pre':728 'principl':37 'prior':312 'proceed':216,673 'profession':337 'proper':343,363,735 'push':131,283,428,430,463,485,577,613 'pushback':91,574,660 'question':23,130,472,840 're':105,526,598,690 'react':62 'read':58 'real':680 'realiti':77 'reason':90,135,262,287,451,467,606 'receiv':2,7,53 'receiving-code-review':1 'recept':26 'refactor':415 'refer':473 'regress':425 'relat':167 'remov':356,686,695,701,750 'repli':795,797,804 'repo':811,813 'report':373 'requir':30,66,127,632 'respond':86 'respons':50,102 'restat':65,124 'review':4,9,25,29,55,245,275,340,371,437,652,685,700,733,800 'right':107,201,528,584,654,692 'rigor':847 'riski':19 'rule':326,368 'say':293 'scope':232 'secur':408 'seem':281 'show':521,552 'signal':482 'simpl':409 'skeptic':330 'skill' 'skill-receiving-code-review' 'skip':237 'social':47 'sound':81 'sourc':218 'source-ganyuanran' 'source-specif':217 'speak':545 'specif':219,471,512 'stack':449 'start':139 'state':567,618,631,675 'still':229 'stop':151,314 'strang':489 'suggest':13,280,341,433,832 'support':730 'target':706 'technic':22,31,44,80,87,126,134,241,250,286,445,466,661,697,846 'test':99,418,644,649 'tests/code':475 'thank':531,535,543,564 'thing':490,658 'thread':794,808 'time':98,648 'top':823 'top-level':822 'topic-add' 'topic-agent-skills' 'topic-ai-agents' 'topic-ai-coding' 'topic-baseline-first' 'topic-claude-code' 'topic-codex' 'topic-coding-agents' 'topic-evidence-driven' 'topic-first-principles' 'topic-opencode' 'topic-software-architecture' 'track':737 'trust':225 'typo':411 'unclear':18,144,150,161,185,233,397,760,776 'uncomfort':484 'understand':64,169,180,203,228,276,602,771,780 'unus':350,443 'usag':348,756 'use':5,360,465 'verif':122,698 'verifi':38,73,292,298,423,594,638,672,839 'violat':110,441 'without':61,300,643 'word':69,142 'work':140,268,474 'write':563 'wrong':137,170,189,282,581,604,721 'x':301,587 'y':591 'yagni':334,358,442,731,752 'yet':156","prices":[{"id":"512046d9-430c-4054-b5e4-86910f534d15","listingId":"c43fba21-277a-4a74-b46a-2b6a7b2e5619","amountUsd":"0","unit":"free","nativeCurrency":null,"nativeAmount":null,"chain":null,"payTo":null,"paymentMethod":"skill-free","isPrimary":true,"details":{"org":"GanyuanRan","category":"Aegis","install_from":"skills.sh"},"createdAt":"2026-05-04T19:05:08.487Z"}],"sources":[{"listingId":"c43fba21-277a-4a74-b46a-2b6a7b2e5619","source":"github","sourceId":"GanyuanRan/Aegis/receiving-code-review","sourceUrl":"https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis/tree/main/skills/receiving-code-review","isPrimary":false,"firstSeenAt":"2026-05-04T19:05:08.487Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-05-18T18:54:49.784Z"}],"details":{"listingId":"c43fba21-277a-4a74-b46a-2b6a7b2e5619","quickStartSnippet":null,"exampleRequest":null,"exampleResponse":null,"schema":null,"openapiUrl":null,"agentsTxtUrl":null,"citations":[],"useCases":[],"bestFor":[],"notFor":[],"kindDetails":{"org":"GanyuanRan","slug":"receiving-code-review","github":{"repo":"GanyuanRan/Aegis","stars":262,"topics":["add","agent-skills","ai-agents","ai-coding","architecture-driven-development","baseline-first","claude-code","codex","coding-agents","evidence-driven","first-principles","opencode","software-architecture","tdd","tlref"],"license":"mit","html_url":"https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis","pushed_at":"2026-05-18T11:05:01Z","description":"Make AI coding agents architecture-aware: baseline-first, evidence-verified, drift-checked, and safe across long tasks.","skill_md_sha":"1fb0467c4c909590059bd6876357f40546f49ff3","skill_md_path":"skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md","default_branch":"main","skill_tree_url":"https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis/tree/main/skills/receiving-code-review"},"layout":"multi","source":"github","category":"Aegis","frontmatter":{"name":"receiving-code-review","description":"Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing suggestions, especially when feedback is unclear, risky, disputed, or technically questionable."},"skills_sh_url":"https://skills.sh/GanyuanRan/Aegis/receiving-code-review"},"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T18:54:49.784Z"}}