القائمة
Review reception protocol - requires technical verification before implementing suggestions. Prevents performative agreement and blind implementation.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Orchestrates the 6-gate development workflow for implementing tasks. Manages state, dispatches specialist agents, and enforces gate requirements.
Captures metrics and learnings from completed development cycles. Enables continuous improvement by analyzing patterns across cycles.
Controlled plan execution with human review checkpoints - loads plan, executes in batches, pauses for feedback. Supports one-go (autonomous) or batch modes.
Gate 4 of development cycle - dispatches 6 specialized reviewers (code, business-logic, security, test, nil-safety, consequences) in parallel for comprehensive code review feedback.
Guide to the dev-team skills - specialist developer agents and 6-gate development cycle. Provides backend engineers (Go/TypeScript), frontend engineers, DevOps, SRE, and QA agents.
Skill discovery workflow and agent dispatch patterns for every conversation.
| name | ring:receiving-code-review |
| description | Review reception protocol - requires technical verification before implementing suggestions. Prevents performative agreement and blind implementation. |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | opencode |
| metadata | {"trigger":"Received code review feedback, about to implement reviewer suggestions","skip_when":"Feedback is clear and obviously correct, no feedback received"} |
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
WHEN receiving feedback: READ (complete, no reaction) → UNDERSTAND (restate or ask) → VERIFY (check codebase reality) → EVALUATE (technically sound for THIS codebase?) → RESPOND (technical acknowledgment or pushback) → IMPLEMENT (one at a time, test each)
NEVER:
INSTEAD:
IF any item is unclear: STOP - do not implement anything yet. ASK for clarification. Items may be related - partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example: "Fix 1-6" - You understand 1,2,3,6, unclear on 4,5. ❌ Implement 1,2,3,6 now. ✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
BEFORE implementing: (1) Technically correct for THIS codebase? (2) Breaks existing functionality? (3) Reason for current implementation? (4) Works on all platforms/versions? (5) Does reviewer understand full context?
your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly": grep codebase for actual usage. Unused? "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?" 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."
FOR multi-item feedback: (1) Clarify anything unclear FIRST (2) Implement: Blocking issues → Simple fixes → Complex fixes (3) Test each fix individually (4) Verify no regressions
Push back when:
How to push back:
Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description]" | ✅ "Good catch - [issue]. Fixed in [location]." | ✅ [Just fix it and show in code] ❌ "You're absolutely right!" | ❌ "Great point!" | ❌ "Thanks for [anything]" | ❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code shows you heard the feedback. About to write "Thanks"? DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
If you pushed back and were wrong: ✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." ❌ Long apology, defending why you pushed back, over-explaining. State the correction factually and move on.
| 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 |
| Type | Response |
|---|---|
| Performative (Bad) | "Remove legacy code" → ❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..." |
| Technical (Good) | "Remove legacy code" → ✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat." |
| YAGNI (Good) | "Implement proper metrics" → ✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)?" |
| Unclear (Good) | "Fix items 1-6" → ✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing." |
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
