Menu
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 com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Baseado na classificação ocupacional SOC
Use when starting any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
Use when the user explicitly requests a code review, or during subagent-driven development where review is part of the workflow
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
| name | sr-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.
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.
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 conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
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
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]
If you pushed back but the reviewer is right:
"You're right — I was wrong about [specific thing]. Fixing now."
Don't double down. Don't save face. Acknowledge, fix, move on.
When responding on GitHub PR reviews:
| 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 breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
Stop and reassess if you catch yourself:
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.