Evaluate code review feedback against the actual code, supported environments, and existing behavior. Clarify uncertain requests, respond with technical evidence, and implement valid changes one at a time with tests for each fix.
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
Checks code review feedback technically before implementing it. It clarifies what each comment means and compares it with the actual code, the reasons behind the current implementation, and supported environments and versions. Valid changes are implemented individually, with tests and checks for effects on existing functionality. Questionable suggestions receive replies supported by code or test evidence.
Use it when review comments are unclear or a proposed change could affect compatibility or existing behavior. It also helps check whether functionality discussed in a request for additions is actually used. For multiple comments, it addresses behavior and security issues first, then simple fixes, then complex changes.
Unclear comments must be clarified before partially implementing related items. External feedback that conflicts with your earlier design decisions is also discussed with you. Replies to GitHub inline review comments are posted in the corresponding comment thread.
This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.
AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.
The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
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:
your human partner: "Fix 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 your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
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
your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
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:
If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud: Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
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!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
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 breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
Performative Agreement (Bad):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
Technical Verification (Good):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
YAGNI (Good):
Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
Unclear Item (Good):
your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies), not as a top-level PR comment.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Clarifies the purpose, preferences, and constraints of a new feature or project through conversation. When useful, it offers mockups or temporary prototypes, then captures an agreed description or written design before implementation begins.
Examine superpowers session records to document repeated work, departures from plans, delays, and token usage. Produce an evidence-based report with file and line references, and prepare bug-report material when requested.
Assign independent bugs or test failures to separate agents that work at the same time. Define each agent’s scope and expected report, then check for conflicting changes and run the full test suite before integrating fixes.
Carry out an existing implementation plan in one session, task by task. Verify each step with tests, record progress and decisions in a file, and finish with a review of all changes on the branch.
Finish completed development work by checking the full test suite and presenting integration choices: merge locally, create a Pull Request, or keep the branch. It carries out the selected path and handles workspace cleanup accordingly.
Requests a code review from a separate agent after implementation or before merging. It provides the change summary, requirements, and commit range, then guides follow-up work according to the severity of the findings.