Receiving Code Review

Automate receiving code review operations through Composio via Rube MCP.

Install

npx promptshop add receiving-code-review

Details

What This Skill Does

This skill helps the agent effectively receive and process code review feedback by emphasizing technical evaluation, verification, and reasoned responses. It discourages emotional reactions and encourages asking clarifying questions before implementing changes. This is useful for any developer receiving code review.

When to Use

Responding to feedback from a human partner.
Addressing comments from external reviewers.
Understanding unclear feedback items.
Evaluating the technical correctness of suggestions.
Verifying suggestions against the codebase reality.
Pushing back on incorrect suggestions with reasoning.

Key Features

Reads and understands feedback before reacting.
Restates requirements in own words.
Verifies suggestions against the codebase.
Evaluates technical soundness for the codebase.
Responds with technical acknowledgment or pushback.
Implements one item at a time, testing each.

Manual Installation

Manual installationView Full Skill ContentThe complete markdown content that gets installedCode 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:

READ: Complete feedback without reacting UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask) VERIFY: Check against codebase reality EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase? RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback 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:

Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
Check: Breaks existing functionality?
Check: Reason for current implementation?
Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
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:

Clarify anything unclear FIRST
Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
Test each fix individually
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. Code Review Reception