sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/receiving-code-review

Name: receiving-code-review
Author: sickn33

Trust tier 3

community

Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Install

npx vskill@latest install sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/receiving-code-review

SKILL.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.

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
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."

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

When To Push Back

Push back when:

Suggestion breaks existing functionality
Reviewer lacks full context
Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
Technically incorrect for this stack
Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions

How to push back:

Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
Ask specific questions
Reference working tests/code
Involve your human partner if architectural

Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
 
❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression

Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
 
❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining

State the correction factually and move on.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Performative agreement	State requirement or just act
Blind implementation	Verify against codebase first
Batch without testing	One at a time, test each
Assuming reviewer is right	Check if breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first
Can't verify, proceed anyway	State limitation, ask for direction

Real Examples

Performative Agreement (Bad):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

Technical Verification (Good):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "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?"

YAGNI (Good):

Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"

Unclear Item (Good):

your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."

GitHub Thread Replies

When 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.

The Bottom Line

External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

When to Use

This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.

Limitations

Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.

Security

Security scanPassed, 100 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
Model reviewPassed

See the full security report

Quality evaluation

Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

See evaluation results

Source

SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

Popularity

Repository stars: 28,107
Repository forks: 4,720
Repository npm downloads, 7 days: 9,774
7-day trend score: 73

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Downloads are for the repository's npm package. Refreshed 28 Mar 2026, 7 months ago.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

Claude Code
Cursor
GitHub Copilot
Windsurf
Codex
Gemini CLI
Cline
Amp
Roo Code
Goose
Continue
Kilo Code
Junie
Trae
OpenHands
Qwen Code
AI Agent
Tabnine Chat
Sourcegraph Cody
Amazon Q
Firebase Genkit
Sweep
Devin
Phind
Mentat
Claude Desktop
Aider
GPT Pilot
Plandex
bolt.new
v0
Replit Agent
Anse
TypingMind
BetterChatGPT
LibreChat
Warp AI
Pieces
Fig AI

Embed badge

[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/receiving-code-review/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/receiving-code-review)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.