Requirements
- Target platform
- OpenClaw
- Install method
- Manual import
- Extraction
- Extract archive
- Prerequisites
- OpenClaw
- Primary doc
- SKILL.md
Tencent SkillHub ยท Productivity
Receiving Code Review
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
skill openclawclawhub Free
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
โฌ 0 downloads โ
0 stars Unverified but indexed
Install for OpenClaw
Quick setup
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.
- Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup.
Package facts
- Download mode
- Yavira redirect
- Package format
- ZIP package
- Source platform
- Tencent SkillHub
- What's included
- SKILL.md
Validation
- Use the Yavira download entry.
- Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.
- Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets.
Install with your agent
Agent handoff
Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract it into a folder your agent can access.
- Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder.
New install
I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete.
Upgrade existing
I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run.
Trust & source
Release facts
- Source
- Tencent SkillHub
- Verification
- Indexed source record
- Version
- 0.1.0
Provenance
- Publisher
- chenleiyanquan
- Source page
- View original listing
- Canonical URL
- Open canonical page
Documentation
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 CLAUDE.md 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. โ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later โ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
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 Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
Acknowledging Correct Feedback
When feedback IS correct: โ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]" โ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]." โ [Just fix it and show in the code] โ "You're absolutely right!" โ "Great point!" โ "Thanks for catching that!" โ "Thanks for [anything]" โ 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: โ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." โ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing." โ Long apology โ Defending why you pushed back โ Over-explaining State the correction factually and move on.
Common Mistakes
MistakeFixPerformative agreementState requirement or just actBlind implementationVerify against codebase firstBatch without testingOne at a time, test eachAssuming reviewer is rightCheck if breaks thingsAvoiding pushbackTechnical correctness > comfortPartial implementationClarify all items firstCan't verify, proceed anywayState limitation, ask for direction
Real Examples
Performative Agreement (Bad): Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" โ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..." Technical Verification (Good): Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" โ "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" โ "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. โ "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.
The Bottom Line
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow. Verify. Question. Then implement. No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
Category context
Workflow acceleration for inboxes, docs, calendars, planning, and execution loops.
Source: Tencent SkillHub
Largest current source with strong distribution and engagement signals.
Package contents
Included in package
1 Docs
- SKILL.md