Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionreceiving-code-reviewExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches receiving-code-review from davila7/claude-code-templates and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate receiving-code-review. Access via /receiving-code-review in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
24.2K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
24.2K
stars
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
NEVER:
INSTEAD:
IF any item is unclear:
STOP - do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
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."
FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions
Push back when:
How to push back:
Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
When feedback IS correct:
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
If you pushed back and were wrong:
✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining
State the correction factually and move on.
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
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."
When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies), not as a top-level PR comment.
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
davila7/claude-code-templates
asyrafhussin/agent-skills
shadcn/improve
mattpocock/skills
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
cursor/plugins
I recommend receiving-code-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Registry listing for receiving-code-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Useful defaults in receiving-code-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
receiving-code-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
receiving-code-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
receiving-code-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
Registry listing for receiving-code-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
receiving-code-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
receiving-code-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: receiving-code-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 72