receiving-code-review · Claude / Claude Code · OpenAI · Codex · Gemini CLI · Grok Build
받은 의견이 맞는지 확인한 뒤 필요한 수정을 적용합니다.
리뷰 의견을 받았을 때 바로 모두 고치기보다 기술적 근거를 확인하도록 돕는 스킬입니다. 의견이 지적한 문제를 재현하고 필요한 수정으로 연결합니다.
리뷰 내용과 관련 코드를 전달해보세요. 맞는 지적과 추가 설명이 필요한 의견을 구분해 검토하면 수정 이유를 이해하면서 변경을 적용할 수 있습니다.
“이 리뷰 의견을 코드와 대조해줘. 실제로 문제가 생기는 항목을 확인한 뒤 필요한 수정을 반영하고 이유를 알려줘.”
받을 수 있는 결과검증한 의견과 수정 내용
사용 중인 코딩 에이전트에 Superpowers를 설치해야 합니다. 에이전트별 제공 도구는 다를 수 있습니다.
사용하는 환경에 맞는 방법 하나를 선택하세요. Superpowers 전체 패키지를 설치하고 새 세션에서 작업을 요청하면 관련 스킬이 호출됩니다.
Claude Code: /plugin install superpowers@claude-plugins-official Codex 앱: Plugins → Coding → Superpowers 설치 Codex CLI: /plugins → Superpowers → Install Plugin Gemini CLI 터미널: gemini extensions install https://github.com/obra/superpowers
“receiving-code-review 스킬을 사용해줘. 입력 자료: 리뷰 의견과 관련 코드”처럼 요청하세요. 위의 예시를 내 자료에 맞게 바꿔도 좋아요.
예상 결과는 ‘검증한 의견과 수정 내용’입니다. 필요한 내용이 포함됐는지 확인하세요. 입력 자료의 사실·숫자와 결과를 대조하고, 부족한 부분을 이어서 요청하세요.
제작자 원본 2026-10-04 확인 · 설치 안내 2026-10-04 확인 · 실제 설치·실행 미검증
모델 사용 요금과 연결 앱 요금은 이용 중인 서비스의 정책을 따릅니다.
설치 안내 출처--- name: 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 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 ```--- name: 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 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 | 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 | ## 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.
Original skill: obra/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers/blob/8ca22dba9a94f28898bbce59f2537ff4d87c747d/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md License: MIT MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
SKILL.md 본문입니다. 원문에서 참조하는 스크립트·보조 파일은 원본 패키지에 포함되어 있습니다.