ワンクリックでManusで任意のスキルを実行

receive-review

スター5

フォーク1

更新日2026年7月16日 12:38

Act on review feedback well — fix real issues, push back on wrong ones. Triggers on address the review, fix the feedback, respond to review, apply review comments.

インストール

Codex または Claude でインストールこの Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。

Manusで実行

ソース

AyushParkara

AyushParkara/syntra

GitHub リポジトリを開く Creator のリポジトリを見る

ダウンロード

Manusで実行

関連職種SOC

SOC 職業分類に基づく

ソフトウェア開発者コンピュータ・数学職·SOC 15-1252

SKILL.md

readonly

name	receive-review
description	Act on review feedback well — fix real issues, push back on wrong ones. Triggers on address the review, fix the feedback, respond to review, apply review comments.
model	inherit

You received review feedback. Your job is to act on it correctly — not to blindly obey every comment, and not to dismiss any.

Method — triage each comment:

Real defect? If the reviewer found a genuine bug/gap, fix it precisely — and only it. Don't rewrite surrounding code that wasn't flagged.
Misunderstanding? If the comment is based on the reviewer missing context, don't silently "fix" it — clarify the context (and consider whether the code should make that context obvious, which is itself a fix).
Wrong / out of scope? Push back with a reason. A reviewer is not always right; blindly applying a bad suggestion introduces bugs. State why you're not changing it.
Style nitpick on a sound choice? Note it, apply if cheap, skip if it fights a deliberate decision.

Rules:

Fix the SPECIFIC thing flagged; resist the urge to "improve" untouched code (that re-opens review surface and risks new bugs).
Re-verify after fixing — the fix must pass the same criterion that failed.
For each comment, record the disposition: fixed / clarified / declined(why).
If feedback and the original plan conflict, surface it rather than guessing.

Output:

COMMENT: <what the reviewer said>
DISPOSITION: fixed | clarified | declined
ACTION: <what you changed, or why not> + re-verify evidence

このリポジトリの他の Skills

同じリポジトリ

brainstorm

AyushParkara/syntra

Refine a vague idea into a clear spec through Socratic questioning. Triggers on brainstorm, explore an idea, help me think through, not sure how to.

2026-07-165

chat

AyushParkara/syntra

General conversation and quick questions. Triggers on greetings, questions, casual chat.

2026-07-165

code-simplify

AyushParkara/syntra

Reduce complexity and improve readability WITHOUT changing behavior. Triggers on simplify, clean up, make this clearer, reduce complexity, too complex.

2026-07-165

coding

AyushParkara/syntra

Write, modify, and implement code. Triggers on requests to build, create, add, or implement features.

2026-07-165

debug

AyushParkara/syntra

Diagnose and fix bugs, errors, crashes. Triggers on fix, bug, error, crash, broken, failing requests.

2026-07-165

dispatch-agents

AyushParkara/syntra

Fan independent work out to parallel sub-agents, then merge results. Triggers on do these in parallel, split this up, run agents, fan out, multiple agents.

2026-07-165

name	receive-review
description	Act on review feedback well — fix real issues, push back on wrong ones. Triggers on address the review, fix the feedback, respond to review, apply review comments.
model	inherit

You received review feedback. Your job is to act on it correctly — not to blindly obey every comment, and not to dismiss any.

Method — triage each comment:

Real defect? If the reviewer found a genuine bug/gap, fix it precisely — and only it. Don't rewrite surrounding code that wasn't flagged.
Misunderstanding? If the comment is based on the reviewer missing context, don't silently "fix" it — clarify the context (and consider whether the code should make that context obvious, which is itself a fix).
Wrong / out of scope? Push back with a reason. A reviewer is not always right; blindly applying a bad suggestion introduces bugs. State why you're not changing it.
Style nitpick on a sound choice? Note it, apply if cheap, skip if it fights a deliberate decision.

Rules:

Fix the SPECIFIC thing flagged; resist the urge to "improve" untouched code (that re-opens review surface and risks new bugs).
Re-verify after fixing — the fix must pass the same criterion that failed.
For each comment, record the disposition: fixed / clarified / declined(why).
If feedback and the original plan conflict, surface it rather than guessing.

Output:

COMMENT: <what the reviewer said>
DISPOSITION: fixed | clarified | declined
ACTION: <what you changed, or why not> + re-verify evidence