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

86

1.34x
Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

1.34x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is receiving-code-review in obra/superpowers

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.

The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and copy-ready examples, organized cleanly as a single self-contained file; its only weakness is moderate redundancy of the anti-sycophancy and pushback themes across sections.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated 'no performative agreement / no thanks' guidance from Forbidden Responses, Acknowledging Correct Feedback, and the Real Examples into a single canonical section to tighten token usage.

Merge the pushback criteria listed in 'When To Push Back' with the earlier 'Source-Specific Handling' guidance to avoid restating the same reasoning in two places.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely dense and directive without explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the anti-sycophancy and pushback themes are restated across several sections (Forbidden Responses, Acknowledging Correct Feedback, Common Mistakes, Real Examples) and could be consolidated.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: a numbered READ-to-IMPLEMENT pattern, explicit NEVER/INSTEAD lists, ✅/❌ example dialogues, an exact gh api reply command, and a YAGNI grep procedure.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (VERIFY, 'test each fix individually', 'verify no regressions') and a prioritized implementation order with feedback loops for multi-item feedback.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A self-contained single-file skill with no external references, organized into clearly labeled sections and a mistakes table; per the simple-skill note this is sufficient for the top anchor.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

75%

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 clearly establishes a distinct niche with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and answers both what and when, though it relies on behavioral framing rather than a list of concrete operations and has limited trigger-term variation.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions to the description (e.g., 'restates requirements, verifies against the codebase, pushes back with technical reasoning') to lift specificity to the top anchor.

Broaden trigger terms to include common variations users would say, such as 'PR comments', 'reviewer suggestions', or 'review feedback'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the code-review domain and several behavioral actions (verify, push back, avoid performative agreement), but states abstract behaviors rather than enumerating multiple discrete concrete actions.

2 / 3

Completeness

An explicit 'Use when receiving code review feedback...' clause answers when, and 'requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation' answers what, satisfying both.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user-sayable terms ('code review feedback') with an explicit 'Use when' trigger, but lacks common variations like 'PR comments' or 'reviewer suggestions'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to a clear niche (receiving code review feedback) with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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
openai/plugins
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.