メニュー
Use when you receive code review feedback (from a reviewer subagent, /review command, or human). Guides proper processing of feedback without dismissing or cherry-picking.
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。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | receiving-code-review |
| description | Use when you receive code review feedback (from a reviewer subagent, /review command, or human). Guides proper processing of feedback without dismissing or cherry-picking. |
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:
Reviewer: "Fix items 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 human's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with the human first
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
grep codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
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:
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!"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no performative agreement: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
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 it breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
Use when starting a new feature, design change, or architecture decision. Explores approaches and tradeoffs before planning or coding. NEVER skip this for non-trivial work.
Use when executing an implementation plan. Each step is delegated to a fresh subagent for isolated context, then reviewed before proceeding. Do NOT execute plans inline — use subagents.
Use when implementation is complete and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
Use when creating implementation plans. Breaks work into small, verifiable steps with exact file paths and verification commands. Use after brainstorming approval.
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Use when implementing features or fixing bugs to determine whether tests should be written. Context-aware - scouts existing test infrastructure before deciding. Not all code needs tests.