Receiving Code Review

two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality) Reception

Overview

two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality) requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

• Leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.

The Response Pattern

WHEN receiving two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality) 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

Anti-Patterns

• Delegating or evaluating without a scoped success condition: The output becomes hard to review and easy to overbuild.
• Skipping the evidence step: A workflow that cannot be re-checked quickly is not ready for handoff.
• Bundling unrelated subtasks together: It creates noisy prompts, weaker ownership, and avoidable integration risk.

Verification Protocol

Before claiming "skill applied successfully":

1. Pass/fail: The receiving two-stage review trigger is matched to a concrete user symptom or artifact. 2. Pass/fail: The core receiving two-stage review workflow is applied without skipping required inputs, outputs, or guardrails. 3. Pass/fail: Evidence is captured from the relevant file, command, rendered artifact, or external source before claiming success. 4. Pressure-test scenario: Apply the skill to an ambiguous request with one missing input and one tempting shortcut. 5. Success metric: Zero rationalizations; unknowns stay explicit until verified.

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.

<!-- PORTABILITY:START -->

Cross-Client Portability

This skill is written to stay usable across GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI.

• GitHub Copilot: keep the folder in a Copilot-visible skill or plugin path, or wrap the workflow as project instructions if the host does not support portable skill folders directly.
• Claude Code: keep the folder in a local skills directory or a compatible plugin or marketplace source.
• Codex: install or sync the folder into $CODEX_HOME/skills/<skill-name> and restart Codex after major changes.
• Gemini CLI: this repository generates a project command named /skills:receiving-code-review from this skill. Rebuild commands with python scripts/export-gemini-skill.py receiving-code-review and then run /commands reload inside Gemini CLI.

<!-- PORTABILITY:END -->

<!-- MCP:START -->

MCP Availability And Fallback

Preferred MCP Server: None required

• Fallback prompt: "Use the two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality) Reception skill without MCP. Rely on the local SKILL.md, bundled references or scripts, and manual verification. Show the exact commands, evidence, and final checks you used before concluding."
• If the current host does not expose a matching server, use the bundled references, scripts, native toolchain, and manual workflow already described in this skill.
• Treat direct local verification, rendered output, logs, tests, or screenshots as the fallback evidence path before completion.

<!-- MCP:END -->

Related Skills

• agent-task-mapping: Use it when the workflow also needs task-to-agent routing decisions.
• custom-agent-usage: Use it when the workflow also needs loading and invoking custom agent definitions safely.
• subagent-delegation: Use it when the workflow also needs safe, scoped delegation to helper agents.
• subagent-driven-development: Use it when the workflow also needs plan-driven implementation with reviewer loops.

Changelog

[2026-04-25] - Version 1.2 Verification Protocol Refresh

Added

• Added a Verification Protocol section with skill-specific pass/fail checks, one pressure-test scenario, and a measurable success metric.
• Added guidance to leverage native parallel subagent dispatch and 200k+ context windows where available.

Changed

• Updated SKILL.md frontmatter to version: "1.2" and last_updated: 2026-04-25.
• Reframed activation guidance toward symptom -> action triggers and standardized two-stage review wording where applicable.

[2026-04-24] - Version 1.1 Refresh

Changed

• Updated the SKILL frontmatter version to 1.1 for the 2026-04-24 catalog refresh.

All notable changes to this skill will be documented in this file.

[2026-04-24] - Skill Refresh

Changed

• Standardized the SKILL frontmatter with version metadata, last-updated date, tags, and a concise catalog description.
• Reformatted the portability and MCP guidance with a preferred server line, a copy-paste fallback prompt, and consistent bullet lists.
• Added a catalog-standard Anti-Patterns section and refreshed the Related Skills links at the end of the skill.