Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

Code-Review-Reception

@tilework-tech/nori-profiles
4
0

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

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name Code-Review-Reception
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: Fetch feedback → Verify → Implement → Re-test → Push updates.

Announce at start: "I'm using the Nori Receiving Code Review skill to handle this feedback."

The Process

Step 0: Create Todo List

For multi-item feedback, use TodoWrite:

- [ ] Fetch and read all PR comments
- [ ] Clarify unclear items (if any)
- [ ] Fix item 1: [description]
- [ ] Fix item 2: [description]
...
- [ ] Run tests/lint/format
- [ ] Push updates

Why: Prevents skipping items and provides visibility to user.

Step 1: Fetch PR Comments

Determine PR number from context:

  • User mentions PR number: Use that
  • Current branch: Run gh pr view --json number -q .number

Fetch all comments:

# View all comments (review + general)
gh pr view [PR-NUMBER] --comments

Read completely before reacting.

Step 2: Understand and Clarify

Apply these checks to each item:

  • Can I restate this requirement in my own words?
  • Is this technically sound for THIS codebase?
  • Does this break existing functionality?
  • Is there a reason for the current implementation?

CRITICAL: If ANY item is unclear, STOP. Ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before implementing ANYTHING.

Example:

User: "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."
❌ Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later

Step 3: Implement Changes

Follow implementation order:

  1. Blocking issues (breaks, security)
  2. Simple fixes (typos, imports)
  3. Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)

For each fix:

  • Implement one at a time
  • Test individually
  • Commit individually (frequent commits)

YAGNI check: If reviewer suggests "implementing properly", grep for actual usage:

grep -r "endpointName" .

If unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"

Step 4: Run Tests, Lint, and Format

Reference finishing-a-development-branch skill (Steps 1-2):

See ~/.claude/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md

  • Run tests: npm test (or project equivalent)
    • If tests fail, fix before proceeding
  • Run type checks: npm run lint:*-types (if available)
    • If type errors, fix before proceeding
  • Run formatter: npm run format
  • Run linter: npm run lint
  • Verify changes: git diff --stat

Step 5: Push Updates

Push changes to PR:

git push

Step 6: Summary and Next Action

Report what changed:

"Code review feedback addressed:

  • Fixed [item 1]: [brief description]
  • Fixed [item 2]: [brief description] ...

Changes pushed to PR. Options:

  1. Done - PR is ready for re-review
  2. More feedback - Additional changes needed
  3. Show changes - Review diffs before marking done

Which would you like?"

Quick Reference Checklist

  • Create TodoWrite for all feedback items
  • Fetch PR comments (gh pr view --comments)
  • Clarify ALL unclear items before implementing ANY
  • Implement in order: blocking → simple → complex
  • Test each fix individually
  • Run tests, type checks, formatting, linting (finishing-a-development-branch)
  • Push updates
  • Summarize changes and ask for next action

Response Tone Guidelines

Forbidden:

  • "You're absolutely right!" / "Great point!" / "Thanks for..." (performative agreement)
  • Implementing before verifying against codebase
  • Proceeding with unclear feedback

Required:

  • Verify suggestions against codebase reality before implementing
  • Push back with technical reasoning if suggestion breaks things or violates YAGNI
  • Ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before implementing ANY items
  • State fixes factually: "Fixed. [what changed]" or just show the code

YAGNI check: If reviewer suggests "implementing properly", grep for actual usage. If unused, ask: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"

When wrong after pushing back: "You were right - checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." No apology needed.

External reviewers: Check if technically correct for THIS codebase, works on all platforms, doesn't conflict with partner's prior decisions. If conflicts, discuss with partner first.

Signal discomfort pushing back: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

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

Red Flags

Never:

  • Skip creating TodoWrite for multi-item feedback
  • Implement without verifying against codebase
  • Proceed with unclear feedback
  • Skip tests/linting/formatting before pushing

Always:

  • Read all feedback completely first
  • Clarify unclear items before implementing
  • Test each fix individually
  • Run full verification before pushing
  • Provide summary of changes to user