Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

receiving-code-review

Processes code review feedback by classifying each finding, reproducing or validating it against the real contract, applying the smallest in-scope fix, and re-running focused proof. Use after comments arrive on a diff, pull request, design, or implementation. Not for requesting a first review or debugging an unrelated failure.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md1.8 KB
  • references/finding-log.md404 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Receiving Code Review

Treat feedback as evidence to investigate, not as an attack to win or a list to obey blindly.

Classify each finding

  • Defect: violates the request, contract, safety, or compatibility.
  • Missing proof: behavior may be correct but the evidence is insufficient.
  • Clarification: intent or ownership is unclear.
  • Preference: stylistic and not worth changing unless it reduces risk.
  • Out of scope: real issue for a separate owner or change.

For a defect, reproduce the failure or inspect the real code path before editing. For a disputed finding, state the invariant and the evidence that supports the decision. Do not dismiss a comment because the suite is green.

Fix loop

  1. Record the finding and its scope classification.
  2. Add a failing regression test or a direct falsifying check when practical.
  3. Make the smallest correction at the owning boundary.
  4. Run focused checks, then the relevant broader checks.
  5. Re-read the changed diff and reply with the exact evidence.
  6. Request re-review for changed contracts or previously disputed findings.

Do not bundle unrelated cleanup or change the product contract to silence a reviewer. Use finding-log.md for multiple comments.

Completion condition

Every in-scope finding is fixed, verified, or explicitly accepted with a reason; out-of-scope work is recorded for follow-up; and the re-review boundary is clear.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

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.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Designs and runs reproducible evaluations for AI agents, prompts, tools, skills, and model-backed workflows using realistic datasets, isolated baselines, objective assertions, rubric grading, trajectory analysis, cost/latency tracking, and regression comparison. Use when measuring agent quality, optimizing skill triggering, comparing prompts or models, or gating an AI feature release. Not for ordinary deterministic unit tests.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Designs or reviews HTTP, REST, GraphQL, RPC, CLI, webhook, event, and service interfaces with explicit inputs, outputs, errors, compatibility, idempotency, pagination, authentication, versioning, and observability. Use when introducing or changing an API or cross-component contract. Not for internal implementation details with no boundary or for debugging one API failure; use root-cause-debugging there.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Reviews an existing codebase for structural friction, unclear ownership, leaky or shallow interfaces, excessive coupling, misplaced state, poor testability, and risky dependency direction, then prioritizes evidence-backed improvement candidates. Use for architecture audits, modularization, modernization, or recurring cross-cutting change pain. Not for designing one new interface, simplifying a local function, or fixing a reproduced bug.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Validates a running application, CLI, API, service, or generated artifact as a user or operator against a prewritten observable behavior contract while remaining source-blind. Use for acceptance checks, runtime proof, anti-fake probes, release smoke tests, or an independent companion to code review. Not for source-quality findings, root-cause diagnosis, or visual design judgment outside the contract.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Closes a completed development branch by checking the final diff and proof, presenting merge, pull-request, keep, or discard options, and cleaning up only after the user or repository workflow chooses a path. Use when feature work is complete and the branch must be integrated or retired. Not for claiming a feature is complete before verification.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

Tests a real web user flow with a browser by asserting semantic behavior, network and loading states, keyboard access, responsive layouts, and stable visual evidence. Use for browser bugs, end-to-end UI behavior, responsive or accessibility checks, and screenshot baselines. Not for static source review without a browser or for backend-only tests.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

thiientv/godmode99Updated Aug 26, 2026

See all skills by thiientv

Report a problem with this skill