receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification, not blind implementation.
Best use case
receiving-code-review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification, not blind implementation.
Teams using receiving-code-review should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How receiving-code-review Compares
| Feature / Agent | receiving-code-review | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification, not blind implementation.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# Code Review Reception ## Overview Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. **Core principle:** Verify before implementing. ## Response Pattern 1. READ - Complete feedback without reacting 2. UNDERSTAND - Restate requirement in own words 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 ## When to Push Back - Suggestion breaks existing functionality - Reviewer lacks full context - Violates YAGNI - Conflicts with architectural decisions ## Tool Use Referenced by implementation processes when handling review feedback.
Related Skills
systematic-review
Conduct comprehensive literature searches, quality assessments, evidence synthesis, and meta-analyses
quality-assurance-review
Conduct systematic quality reviews of instructional materials using established rubrics (Quality Matters) and design standards
peer-review-simulator
Skill for simulating peer review feedback on manuscripts
dfm-review
Skill for design for manufacturing review and optimization
design-review
Skill for formal design review preparation and execution (PDR/CDR)
design-review-facilitator
Design review planning and execution skill for structured design phase gate reviews per 21 CFR 820.30
clinical-literature-reviewer
Systematic literature review skill for clinical evaluation supporting regulatory submissions
performance-review
Generate performance review documentation and facilitate evaluation processes
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
security-review
Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.
plan-review-gate
Adversarial plan review by 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) before presenting to user.
design-review-gate
Parallel design review by 6 specialist agents (PM, Architect, Designer, Security Design, UX, CTO) with mandatory unanimous approval.