Update to Superpowers

{
  "name": "receiving-code-review",
  "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",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 127
    }
  ],
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: receiving-code-review\ndescription: 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\n---\n\n# Code Review Reception\n\n## Overview\n\nCode review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.\n\n**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.\n\n## The Response Pattern\n\n```\nWHEN receiving code review feedback:\n\n1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting\n2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)\n3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality\n4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?\n5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback\n6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each\n```\n\n## Forbidden Responses\n\n**NEVER:**\n- \"You're absolutely right!\" (explicit instruction-file violation)\n- \"Great point!\" / \"Excellent feedback!\" (performative)\n- \"Let me implement that now\" (before verification)\n\n**INSTEAD:**\n- Restate the technical requirement\n- Ask clarifying questions\n- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong\n- Just start working (actions > words)\n\n## Handling Unclear Feedback\n\n```\nIF any item is unclear:\n  STOP - do not implement anything yet\n  ASK for clarification on unclear items\n\nWHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.\n```\n\n**Example:**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n\n❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later\n✅ RIGHT: \"I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding.\"\n```\n\n## Source-Specific Handling\n\n### From your human partner\n- **Trusted** - implement after understanding\n- **Still ask** if scope unclear\n- **No performative agreement**\n- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment\n\n### From External Reviewers\n```\nBEFORE implementing:\n  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?\n  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?\n  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?\n  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?\n  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?\n\nIF suggestion seems wrong:\n  Push back with technical reasoning\n\nIF can't easily verify:\n  Say so: \"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?\"\n\nIF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:\n  Stop and discuss with your human partner first\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully\"\n\n## YAGNI Check for \"Professional\" Features\n\n```\nIF reviewer suggests \"implementing properly\":\n  grep codebase for actual usage\n\n  IF unused: \"This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?\"\n  IF used: Then implement properly\n```\n\n**your human partner's rule:** \"You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it.\"\n\n## Implementation Order\n\n```\nFOR multi-item feedback:\n  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST\n  2. Then implement in this order:\n     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)\n     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)\n     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)\n  3. Test each fix individually\n  4. Verify no regressions\n```\n\n## When To Push Back\n\nPush back when:\n- Suggestion breaks existing functionality\n- Reviewer lacks full context\n- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)\n- Technically incorrect for this stack\n- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist\n- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions\n\n**How to push back:**\n- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness\n- Ask specific questions\n- Reference working tests/code\n- Involve your human partner if architectural\n\n**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.\n\n## Acknowledging Correct Feedback\n\nWhen feedback IS correct:\n```\n✅ \"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]\"\n✅ \"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location].\"\n✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]\n\n❌ \"You're absolutely right!\"\n❌ \"Great point!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for catching that!\"\n❌ \"Thanks for [anything]\"\n❌ ANY gratitude expression\n```\n\n**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.\n\n**If you catch yourself about to write \"Thanks\":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.\n\n## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback\n\nIf you pushed back and were wrong:\n```\n✅ \"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now.\"\n✅ \"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing.\"\n\n❌ Long apology\n❌ Defending why you pushed back\n❌ Over-explaining\n```\n\nState the correction factually and move on.\n\n## Common Mistakes\n\n| Mistake | Fix |\n|---------|-----|\n| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |\n| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |\n| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |\n| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |\n| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |\n| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |\n| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |\n\n## Real Examples\n\n**Performative Agreement (Bad):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n❌ \"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that...\"\n```\n\n**Technical Verification (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Remove legacy code\"\n✅ \"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?\"\n```\n\n**YAGNI (Good):**\n```\nReviewer: \"Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export\"\n✅ \"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?\"\n```\n\n**Unclear Item (Good):**\n```\nyour human partner: \"Fix items 1-6\"\nYou understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.\n✅ \"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing.\"\n```\n\n## GitHub Thread Replies\n\nWhen 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.\n"
}