# Receiving Code Review

Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing suggestions, especially...

- Repository: https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis (1408 stars)
- Category: Git and review
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-10-25
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis --skill receiving-code-review -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis --skill receiving-code-review -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis --skill receiving-code-review -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add GanyuanRan/Aegis --skill receiving-code-review -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add GanyuanRan/Aegis`

## Description

Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing suggestions, especially when feedback is unclear, risky, disputed, or technically questionable.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# 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 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.

❌ 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

The rest: https://github.com/GanyuanRan/Aegis/blob/HEAD/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md