CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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

75

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced behavioral skill with explicit checkpoints and concrete reply templates. Its main weakness is conciseness: the anti-performative-agreement and forbidden-phrase lists are repeated across several sections and could be consolidated into a single canonical list.

Suggestions

Consolidate the forbidden-phrase list ('You're absolutely right!', 'Great point!', 'Thanks for...') into one canonical section and reference it from the other sections instead of restating it in 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback', 'Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback', and 'Real Examples'.

Merge the repeated 'no performative agreement / no thanks' rationale — it appears in 'Forbidden Responses', 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback', and 'The Bottom Line'; state the principle once and link back.

Tighten 'Real Examples' to one or two illustrative cases per pattern rather than restating the same bad/good reply shapes already shown inline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient (lists, tables, code-block patterns, no basic-concept padding), but the forbidden phrases ('You're absolutely right!', 'Great point!', 'Thanks for...') and the no-performative-agreement message recur across 'Forbidden Responses', 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback', 'Gracefully Correcting', and 'Real Examples', so it could be tightened by defining once and referencing.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout: exact ✅/❌ reply phrases, a specific gh api replies command, and decision trees (e.g., the YAGNI grep-then-ask pattern and the unclear-item STOP/ASK block).

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced process (READ→UNDERSTAND→VERIFY→EVALUATE→RESPOND→IMPLEMENT) with explicit checkpoints — STOP/ASK on unclear items, clarify-before-implement ordering, 'test each fix individually', and 'verify no regressions'.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so all guidance lives in one well-organized SKILL.md with clearly headed sections and easy navigation; for a cohesive single-purpose behavioral skill there is no genuine need to split into external references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description cleanly answers both what and when with an explicit trigger, names concrete behaviors, and occupies a distinct niche. The trailing clause '- requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation' is slightly prescriptive/verbose but remains specific and informative.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete behaviors in the code-review-reception domain: 'receiving code review feedback', 'before implementing suggestions', 'verification', avoiding 'performative agreement or blind implementation' — multiple specific actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicit 'Use when' clause answers when ('Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable') and the rest states what (technical rigor and verification).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present — 'code review feedback', 'suggestions', 'feedback seems unclear or technically questionable' — which map closely to how a user requests help handling review comments.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — the act of receiving/evaluating code review feedback rather than performing reviews — with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
obra/superpowers
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.