メニュー
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
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
Use before calling moe.complete_step on the final step of a task, and again before moe.complete_task. Forces you to read your own diff as an attacker, not an author. Catches concurrency bugs, null-deref, embarrassing assumptions before QA does.
Use when writing, reviewing, or debugging modern C++ (C++11 and beyond) — .cpp/.cc/.cxx/.h/.hpp files, CMake builds, smart pointers, RAII, move semantics, templates, STL, or concurrency.
Use before referencing any function, model, method, relationship, constant, or import in a plan or implementation. Verifies things actually exist in the codebase before building on top of them. Eliminates an entire class of hallucinated-API bugs.
Use when an architect is turning an epic into a set of tasks (moe.create_task), before planning any single one. Covers where to cut the seams, how to size and order tasks, what each task's Definition of Done must carry, and the mandatory final integration-and-hardening task. Distinct from moe-planning, which plans the steps inside one task.
Use when an architect is turning a Moe task into an implementation plan via moe.submit_plan. Provides the canonical 8-phase template (plan, explore, tests, minimum impl, verify, document, adversarial review, QA loop), rules for when to skip phases on trivial tasks, and where the verification gate belongs — once at the end of a task, and at full scope only on the epic's final task.
Use when reviewing a task in REVIEW status as the QA agent. Provides the structured decision flow for moe.qa_approve vs moe.qa_reject, with rejectionDetails that drive a clean fix on the worker side.
| 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 requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
NEVER write:
INSTEAD: restate the requirement, ask clarifying questions, push back with technical reasoning, or just start working. Actions > words. If you catch yourself typing "Thanks", delete it.
If any item is unclear, do NOT implement anything yet. Ask for clarification on the unclear items first. Items may be related; partial understanding produces wrong implementations.
Wrong: "I'll implement 1,2,3,6 now and ask about 4,5 later." Right: "I understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
Push back when:
How: technical reasoning, not defensiveness. Ask specific questions. Reference working tests/code.
If a reviewer says "implement properly", grep the codebase for actual usage. If unused, push: "This isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?" If used, then implement properly.
For multi-item feedback:
State the fix factually:
No gratitude. No performative agreement.
If you pushed back and were wrong: "You were right — I checked X and it does Y. Implementing now." No long apology, no defending, no over-explaining.
This skill loads when nextAction.recommendedSkill = receiving-code-review — typically after moe.qa_reject (task is back in WORKING with reopenCount > 0 and rejectionDetails populated).
When you receive a QA rejection:
rejectionDetails first. Don't start fixing until you understand every item.moe.add_comment on the task channel with technical reasoning. Don't silently ignore; don't silently implement.moe.start_step per item — don't batch unrelated fixes.moe.complete_task summary.Never include performative gratitude in moe.add_comment. State what you changed.