AI SummaryHelps developers critically evaluate code review feedback by verifying technical soundness before implementation, preventing blind acceptance of potentially incorrect suggestions.
Install
# Install skill into your project mkdir -p .cursor/skills/receiving-code-review && curl --retry 3 --retry-delay 2 --retry-all-errors -o .cursor/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/obra/superpowers/main/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md"
Run in your IDE terminal (bash). On Windows, use Git Bash, WSL, or your IDE's built-in terminal. If curl fails with an SSL error, your network may block raw.githubusercontent.com — try using a VPN or download the files directly from the source repo.
Description
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
Overview
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
` IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly": grep codebase for actual usage IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?" IF used: Then implement properly ` your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
Real Examples
Performative Agreement (Bad): ` Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" ❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..." ` Technical Verification (Good): ` Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" ✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?" ` YAGNI (Good): ` Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export" ✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?" ` Unclear Item (Good): ` your human partner: "Fix items 1-6" You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5. ✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing." `
The Response Pattern
` WHEN receiving code review feedback: • READ: Complete feedback without reacting • UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask) • VERIFY: Check against codebase reality • EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase? • RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback • IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each `
Quality Score
Good
75/100
Trust & Transparency
Open Source — MIT
Source code publicly auditable
Verified Open Source
Hosted on GitHub — publicly auditable
Actively Maintained
Last commit 3d ago
84.2k stars — Strong Community
6.6k forks
My Fox Den
Community Rating
Sign in to rate this booster