Menu
Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing — rigor required, not blind agreement.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Use when implementing real-time DSP algorithms, audio thread architecture, or offline spectral analysis in C++/Rust. Covers filters, STFT pipelines, lock-free concurrency, and RT safety. Not for JUCE plugin lifecycle wiring or ffmpeg.
Use for real-time audio code safety, determinism, and numeric hygiene. Required foundation for DSP, audio analysis, audio systems, and JUCE work. Not for game-audio middleware or ffmpeg/video tasks.
Use when programmatically processing video/audio with libffmpeg C API. Not for command-line ffmpeg operations.
Use for JUCE audio apps/plugins: AudioProcessor lifecycle, VST3/AU targets, parameter systems, and thread separation. Requires audio-engineering-principles. Not for game-audio middleware or non-JUCE frameworks.
Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code — covers workflow, essential patterns, and pre-commit checklist for modern C++17/20.
Use when writing or fixing C++ tests, configuring GoogleTest/CTest, or adding coverage/sanitizers.
| name | receiving-code-review |
| description | Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing — rigor required, not blind agreement. |
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
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
NEVER:
INSTEAD:
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."
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"
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."
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
Push back when:
How to push back:
Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
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.
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.
| 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 |
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."
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.
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.