Menú
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
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Use when an HTML UI beats terminal text — collecting structured answers (decision trees, multi-select, code/SQL fields), showing visual comparisons or mockups, running interactive demos, or presenting decisions for approval. A local browser companion renders markdown+YAML screens and streams the user's answers back. Use when: many questions at once, layout/visual choices, mockup or diagram feedback, config wizard, demo review, approve/revise decisions. Skip: a single quick question (use AskUserQuestion or plain text).
Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring Skill tool invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
| name | receiving-code-review |
| description | 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 |
Code review 需技術評估，非情感展演。
核心原則： 實作前驗。假設前問。技術正確勝社交安逸。
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
絕不：
代之：
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.
例：
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
駁之時：
如何駁：
若難開口駁： "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
正確時：
✅ "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
何以無謝： 行動勝言。修之。碼本身示汝已聞。
若察將書「Thanks」： 刪之。代以修之述。
汝駁而誤：
✅ "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
據實述修而進。
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| 展演之同意 | 述要求或直行動 |
| 盲實作 | 先驗於 codebase |
| 不測而批量 | 一次一，每測 |
| 假 reviewer 對 | 察是否破 |
| 避駁 | 技術正確 > 安逸 |
| 部分實作 | 先澄清所有 |
| 不能驗而續 | 述限，求向 |
展演同意（Bad）：
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
技術驗證（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."
答 inline review comment 於 GitHub 時，於 comment thread 中答（gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies），勿作頂層 PR comment。
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
驗之。問之。方實作。
無展演之同意。技術嚴謹恆常。