원클릭으로 Manus에서 모든 스킬 실행

receive-review

스타5

포크1

업데이트2026년 7월 16일 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.

설치

Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.

Manus에서 실행

출처

AyushParkara

AyushParkara/syntra

GitHub 저장소 열기 Creator 저장소 보기

다운로드

Manus에서 실행

관련 직업SOC

SOC 직업 분류 기준

소프트웨어 개발자컴퓨터 및 수학직·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

이 저장소의 다른 Skills

같은 저장소

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