Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →sickn33/receiving-code-review
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 22 without it.
and 6 more in the full report
6 fixed13 passed either way2 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
A peer reviewer submitted a suggestion to refactor a utility function. I agree with the change. Draft a short acknowledgment message to post on the PR.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The draft response does not contain the phrase 'You're absolutely right' | Passed | Passed |
| The draft response does not contain phrases like 'Great point' or 'Excellent feedback' | Missed | Passed |
| The response focuses strictly on technical action or verification | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
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
test cases passed, vs 14 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.