receiving-code-review
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
- Installs
- 92
- Last 24h
- —
- Trending rank
- —
- Security
- Not audited
Install
Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.
npx skills add https://github.com/osmontero/opencode-skills --skill receiving-code-review- 01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
- 02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads receiving-code-review automatically when relevant.
- 03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.
SKILL.md
The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.
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 AGENTS.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:
RIGHT: "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
RIGHT: "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
RIGHT: [Just fix it and show in the code]
WRONG: "You're absolutely right!"
WRONG: "Great point!"
WRONG: "Thanks for catching that!"
WRONG: "Thanks for [anything]"
WRONG: 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:
RIGHT: "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
RIGHT: "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
WRONG: Long apology
WRONG: Defending why you pushed back
WRONG: 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"
WRONG: "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
Technical Verification (Good):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
RIGHT: "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"
RIGHT: "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.
RIGHT: "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.
FAQ
What does the receiving-code-review skill do?
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
How do I install receiving-code-review?
Run npx skills add https://github.com/osmontero/opencode-skills --skill receiving-code-review in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/ (personal) or .claude/skills/receiving-code-review/ (project).
Which AI agents can use receiving-code-review?
Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.
Is receiving-code-review safe to install?
No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.
Who maintains receiving-code-review?
It is published by osmontero in osmontero/opencode-skills. It has 92 recorded installs.
More from osmontero/opencode-skills
designing-frontend-interfaces
osmontero/opencode-skills
Use when building or restyling any web interface — landing pages, dashboards, marketing sites, web apps, React/Vue components, HTML/CSS layouts, artifacts, posters — or when asked to make a UI look better, more polished, more distinctive, less generic, or less "AI-generated". Also use when a design brief, art direction, visual identity, type scale, or color system is needed before implementation.
designing-user-experience
osmontero/opencode-skills
Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.
reviewing-interface-quality
osmontero/opencode-skills
Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.
building-accessible-interfaces
osmontero/opencode-skills
Use when building or auditing any web UI for accessibility — keyboard navigation, screen readers, focus management, ARIA, color contrast, form labels and error announcements, reduced motion, or touch target size. Triggers include "is this accessible", "WCAG", "a11y", "screen reader", "keyboard navigation", "focus trap", "contrast ratio", "aria-label", or building modals, menus, tabs, comboboxes, toasts, and custom controls that must work without a mouse.
systematic-debugging
osmontero/opencode-skills
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
verifying-before-completion
osmontero/opencode-skills
Open the skill to read its SKILL.md instructions.
Popular code quality & workflow skills
grill-me
mattpocock/skills
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.
improve-codebase-architecture
mattpocock/skills
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
handoff
mattpocock/skills
Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
domain-modeling
mattpocock/skills
Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a GLOSSARY.md, or recording or editing an ADR.
codebase-design
mattpocock/skills
Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.
diagnosing-bugs
mattpocock/skills
Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.