{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "receiving-code-review", "name": "Receiving Code Review", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "效率提升", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/chenleiyanquan/receiving-code-review", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/chenleiyanquan/receiving-code-review", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/receiving-code-review", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=receiving-code-review", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "SKILL.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "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." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "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." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "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." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "slug": "receiving-code-review", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-05-01T01:10:21.477Z", "expiresAt": "2026-05-08T01:10:21.477Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=receiving-code-review", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=receiving-code-review", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"receiving-code-review-0.1.0.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null, "slug": "receiving-code-review" }, "scope": "item", "summary": "Item download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this item.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/receiving-code-review" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/receiving-code-review", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "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." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "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." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "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." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "Overview", "body": "Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.\n\nCore principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort." }, { "title": "The Response Pattern", "body": "WHEN receiving code review feedback:\n\n1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting\n2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)\n3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality\n4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?\n5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback\n6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each" }, { "title": "Forbidden Responses", "body": "NEVER:\n\n\"You're absolutely right!\" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)\n\"Great point!\" / \"Excellent feedback!\" (performative)\n\"Let me implement that now\" (before verification)\n\nINSTEAD:\n\nRestate the technical requirement\nAsk clarifying questions\nPush back with technical reasoning if wrong\nJust start working (actions > words)" }, { "title": "Handling Unclear Feedback", "body": "IF any item is unclear:\n STOP - do not implement anything yet\n ASK for clarification on unclear items\n\nWHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.\n\nExample:\n\nyour human partner: \"Fix 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n\n❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later\n✅ RIGHT: \"I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.\"" }, { "title": "From your human partner", "body": "Trusted - implement after understanding\nStill ask if scope unclear\nNo performative agreement\nSkip to action or technical acknowledgment" }, { "title": "From External Reviewers", "body": "BEFORE implementing:\n 1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?\n 2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?\n 3. Check: Reason for current implementation?\n 4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?\n 5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?\n\nIF suggestion seems wrong:\n Push back with technical reasoning\n\nIF can't easily verify:\n Say so: \"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?\"\n\nIF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:\n Stop and discuss with your human partner first\n\nyour human partner's rule: \"External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully\"" }, { "title": "YAGNI Check for \"Professional\" Features", "body": "IF reviewer suggests \"implementing properly\":\n grep codebase for actual usage\n\n IF unused: \"This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?\"\n IF used: Then implement properly\n\nyour human partner's rule: \"You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it.\"" }, { "title": "Implementation Order", "body": "FOR multi-item feedback:\n 1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST\n 2. Then implement in this order:\n - Blocking issues (breaks, security)\n - Simple fixes (typos, imports)\n - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)\n 3. Test each fix individually\n 4. Verify no regressions" }, { "title": "When To Push Back", "body": "Push back when:\n\nSuggestion breaks existing functionality\nReviewer lacks full context\nViolates YAGNI (unused feature)\nTechnically incorrect for this stack\nLegacy/compatibility reasons exist\nConflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions\n\nHow to push back:\n\nUse technical reasoning, not defensiveness\nAsk specific questions\nReference working tests/code\nInvolve your human partner if architectural\n\nSignal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: \"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K\"" }, { "title": "Acknowledging Correct Feedback", "body": "When feedback IS correct:\n\n✅ \"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]\"\n✅ \"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location].\"\n✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]\n\n❌ \"You're absolutely right!\"\n❌ \"Great point!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for catching that!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for [anything]\"\n❌ ANY gratitude expression\n\nWhy no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.\n\nIf you catch yourself about to write \"Thanks\": DELETE IT. State the fix instead." }, { "title": "Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback", "body": "If you pushed back and were wrong:\n\n✅ \"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now.\"\n✅ \"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing.\"\n\n❌ Long apology\n❌ Defending why you pushed back\n❌ Over-explaining\n\nState the correction factually and move on." }, { "title": "Common Mistakes", "body": "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" }, { "title": "Real Examples", "body": "Performative Agreement (Bad):\n\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n❌ \"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that...\"\n\nTechnical Verification (Good):\n\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n✅ \"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?\"\n\nYAGNI (Good):\n\nReviewer: \"Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export\"\n✅ \"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?\"\n\nUnclear Item (Good):\n\nyour human partner: \"Fix items 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n✅ \"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing.\"" }, { "title": "GitHub Thread Replies", "body": "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." }, { "title": "The Bottom Line", "body": "External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.\n\nVerify. Question. Then implement.\n\nNo performative agreement. Technical rigor always." } ], "body": "Code Review Reception\nOverview\n\nCode review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.\n\nCore principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.\n\nThe Response Pattern\nWHEN receiving code review feedback:\n\n1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting\n2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)\n3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality\n4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?\n5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback\n6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each\n\nForbidden Responses\n\nNEVER:\n\n\"You're absolutely right!\" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)\n\"Great point!\" / \"Excellent feedback!\" (performative)\n\"Let me implement that now\" (before verification)\n\nINSTEAD:\n\nRestate the technical requirement\nAsk clarifying questions\nPush back with technical reasoning if wrong\nJust start working (actions > words)\nHandling Unclear Feedback\nIF any item is unclear:\n STOP - do not implement anything yet\n ASK for clarification on unclear items\n\nWHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.\n\n\nExample:\n\nyour human partner: \"Fix 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n\n❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later\n✅ RIGHT: \"I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.\"\n\nSource-Specific Handling\nFrom your human partner\nTrusted - implement after understanding\nStill ask if scope unclear\nNo performative agreement\nSkip to action or technical acknowledgment\nFrom External Reviewers\nBEFORE implementing:\n 1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?\n 2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?\n 3. Check: Reason for current implementation?\n 4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?\n 5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?\n\nIF suggestion seems wrong:\n Push back with technical reasoning\n\nIF can't easily verify:\n Say so: \"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?\"\n\nIF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:\n Stop and discuss with your human partner first\n\n\nyour human partner's rule: \"External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully\"\n\nYAGNI Check for \"Professional\" Features\nIF reviewer suggests \"implementing properly\":\n grep codebase for actual usage\n\n IF unused: \"This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?\"\n IF used: Then implement properly\n\n\nyour human partner's rule: \"You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it.\"\n\nImplementation Order\nFOR multi-item feedback:\n 1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST\n 2. Then implement in this order:\n - Blocking issues (breaks, security)\n - Simple fixes (typos, imports)\n - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)\n 3. Test each fix individually\n 4. Verify no regressions\n\nWhen To Push Back\n\nPush back when:\n\nSuggestion breaks existing functionality\nReviewer lacks full context\nViolates YAGNI (unused feature)\nTechnically incorrect for this stack\nLegacy/compatibility reasons exist\nConflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions\n\nHow to push back:\n\nUse technical reasoning, not defensiveness\nAsk specific questions\nReference working tests/code\nInvolve your human partner if architectural\n\nSignal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: \"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K\"\n\nAcknowledging Correct Feedback\n\nWhen feedback IS correct:\n\n✅ \"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]\"\n✅ \"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location].\"\n✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]\n\n❌ \"You're absolutely right!\"\n❌ \"Great point!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for catching that!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for [anything]\"\n❌ ANY gratitude expression\n\n\nWhy no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.\n\nIf you catch yourself about to write \"Thanks\": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.\n\nGracefully Correcting Your Pushback\n\nIf you pushed back and were wrong:\n\n✅ \"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now.\"\n✅ \"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing.\"\n\n❌ Long apology\n❌ Defending why you pushed back\n❌ Over-explaining\n\n\nState the correction factually and move on.\n\nCommon Mistakes\nMistake\tFix\nPerformative agreement\tState requirement or just act\nBlind implementation\tVerify against codebase first\nBatch without testing\tOne at a time, test each\nAssuming reviewer is right\tCheck if breaks things\nAvoiding pushback\tTechnical correctness > comfort\nPartial implementation\tClarify all items first\nCan't verify, proceed anyway\tState limitation, ask for direction\nReal Examples\n\nPerformative Agreement (Bad):\n\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n❌ \"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that...\"\n\n\nTechnical Verification (Good):\n\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n✅ \"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?\"\n\n\nYAGNI (Good):\n\nReviewer: \"Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export\"\n✅ \"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?\"\n\n\nUnclear Item (Good):\n\nyour human partner: \"Fix items 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n✅ \"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing.\"\n\nGitHub Thread Replies\n\nWhen 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.\n\nThe Bottom Line\n\nExternal feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.\n\nVerify. Question. Then implement.\n\nNo performative agreement. Technical rigor always." }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/chenleiyanquan/receiving-code-review", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/chenleiyanquan/receiving-code-review", "owner": "chenleiyanquan", "version": "0.1.0", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/receiving-code-review", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/receiving-code-review/agent.md" } }