The body is lean and bullet-driven, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; the mild restatement in "Bottom Line" serves emphasis rather than padding.

Provides concrete executable guidance — e.g. `BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)`, dispatching the code-reviewer subagent with named fields, and the IDENTIFY→RUN→READ→VERIFY→THEN gate — rather than vague direction.

Multi-step processes are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the READ→UNDERSTAND→VERIFY→EVALUATE→RESPOND→IMPLEMENT pattern and the verification gate with "Skip any step = lying" enforce recovery checkpoints.

The body is a clear overview pointing to three real, one-level-deep reference files (code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md), each clearly signaled with "Reference:"/"Full protocol:" labels, with details appropriately split out.

Lists three concrete practices with specific mechanisms — "requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent", "verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims", "receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement" — which are concrete actions for a process skill, not vague language.

Explicitly answers what ("Covers three practices...") and when ("Use when receiving code review feedback... when completing tasks... before making any completion/success claims") with explicit triggers, satisfying both halves.

Covers natural terms a user would say — "code review feedback", "completing tasks or major features", "pull requests", "completion/success claims", "subagent-driven development" — giving good coverage of common phrasings.

The niche is clear and unlikely to trigger the wrong skill — triggers are anchored to code review, the code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates rather than generic terms.