Code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification. Use when receiving code review feedback, completing tasks requiring review, or before making completion claims.
82
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
Code review requires three distinct practices:
Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback
│ ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
│ ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
│ └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
│
├─ Completed work
│ ├─ Major feature/task? → Request systematic review
│ └─ Before merge? → Request systematic review
│
└─ About to claim status
├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
└─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command firstBefore any completion claim or commit:
For detailed protocols, see:
references/receiving-feedback.md - How to handle code review feedbackreferences/requesting-review.md - Systematic review processesreferences/verification-gates.md - Evidence before claims protocole6ec8ed
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.