AutoGineer
Generated banner for Receiving Code Review
Generated logo for Receiving Code Review

Receiving Code Review

OpenAIOfficialCreated by Jesse VincentDistributed by OpenAI

  • Skill
  • Guidelines
  • Software development
  • MIT
  • No issues found
Download ZIP

From the author

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
— the description by Jesse Vincent

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

This skill provides a structured approach to handling code review feedback, prioritizing technical accuracy and codebase integrity over social pleasantries. It mandates a verification-first mindset, requiring the agent to validate all suggestions against the current codebase, architectural constraints, and project needs before implementation. The guidelines explicitly prohibit performative agreement and gratitude, encouraging instead factual acknowledgments, reasoned technical pushback, and clear communication when requirements are ambiguous.

What it does

  • Defines a step-by-step process for reading, verifying, and implementing review feedback.
  • Provides specific patterns for pushing back on technically questionable or context-blind suggestions.
  • Establishes rules for handling unclear feedback to prevent partial or incorrect implementations.
  • Enforces a YAGNI-based check for proposed features to avoid unnecessary code bloat.
  • Standardizes communication style by removing performative language and focusing on technical facts.
  • Outlines a systematic order for implementing multi-item feedback to ensure stability.

When to use it

  • When receiving feedback on pull requests or code changes from human partners or external reviewers.
  • When review comments are ambiguous, technically questionable, or conflict with existing architectural decisions.
  • When a reviewer suggests adding features that may not be required by the current codebase.
  • When you need to maintain a professional, objective, and efficient tone in technical discussions.

Advantages

  • Reduces the risk of introducing bugs through blind implementation of feedback.
  • Ensures architectural consistency by prioritizing project context over external suggestions.
  • Promotes clear, concise, and professional communication between developers.
  • Prevents scope creep by applying YAGNI principles to review suggestions.
  • Increases technical rigor by requiring verification for every proposed change.

Usage examples

“The reviewer asked me to implement a complex metrics tracking system. What should I do?”
The agent will first grep the codebase to verify if the endpoint is actually used. If unused, it will ask the reviewer if the feature should be removed instead of implemented, adhering to YAGNI.
“I received feedback with six items, but I only understand four of them. How should I respond?”
The agent will state exactly which items it understands and request clarification on the remaining two before starting any implementation work.
“The reviewer suggested a change that breaks backward compatibility. How do I handle this?”
The agent will push back by citing the specific technical requirement for backward compatibility and asking the reviewer to clarify if the support should be dropped or the implementation adjusted.
“How should I acknowledge a correct piece of feedback?”
The agent will provide a factual statement like 'Fixed. [Description of change]' or 'Good catch - [issue]. Fixed in [location]', avoiding all expressions of gratitude.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/openai/receiving-code-review/download

  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip receiving-code-review.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by Jesse Vincent

Code Review Reception

Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

The Response Pattern

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

Forbidden Responses

NEVER:

  • "You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file violation)

  • "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)

  • "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

INSTEAD:

  • Restate the technical requirement

  • Ask clarifying questions

  • Push back with technical reasoning if wrong

  • Just start working (actions > words)

Handling Unclear Feedback

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."

Source-Specific Handling

From your human partner

  • Trusted - implement after understanding

  • Still ask if scope unclear

  • No performative agreement

  • Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From External Reviewers
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"

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

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."

Implementation Order

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

When To Push Back

Push back when:

  • Suggestion breaks existing functionality

  • Reviewer lacks full context

  • Violates YAGNI (unused feature)

  • Technically incorrect for this stack

  • Legacy/compatibility reasons exist

  • Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions

How to push back:

  • Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness

  • Ask specific questions

  • Reference working tests/code

  • Involve your human partner if architectural

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.

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

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.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

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.

Common Mistakes

MistakeFix
Performative agreementState requirement or just act
Blind implementationVerify against codebase first
Batch without testingOne at a time, test each
Assuming reviewer is rightCheck if breaks things
Avoiding pushbackTechnical correctness > comfort
Partial implementationClarify all items first
Can't verify, proceed anywayState limitation, ask for direction

Real Examples

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."

GitHub Thread Replies

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.

Files

Requirements and compatibility

Written for: OpenAI Codex

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Security

No issues found by our static scan· No issues found

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

Created by
Jesse Vincent
Publisher
OpenAI (Official)
Distributed by
OpenAI
Source
openai/plugins · plugins/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review · commit d420d13
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from plugins/superpowers/LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced
Also distributed in
obra/superpowers

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Jesse Vincent or OpenAI.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download receiving-code-review.zip