Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
SKILL.md
Code Review
Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
Overview
Code review requires three distinct practices:
Receiving feedback - Technical evaluation over performative agreement
Requesting reviews - Systematic review via code-reviewer subagent
Verification gates - Evidence before any completion claims
Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files.
Core Principle
Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
When to Use This Skill
Receiving Feedback
Trigger when:
Receiving code review comments from any source
Feedback seems unclear or technically questionable
Multiple review items need prioritization
External reviewer lacks full context
Suggestion conflicts with existing decisions
Reference:references/code-review-reception.md
Requesting Review
Trigger when:
Completing tasks in subagent-driven development (after EACH task)
Finishing major features or refactors
Before merging to main branch
Stuck and need fresh perspective
After fixing complex bugs
Reference:references/requesting-code-review.md
Verification Gates
Trigger when:
About to claim tests pass, build succeeds, or work is complete
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 code-reviewer subagent review
│ └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│
└─ About to claim status
├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
└─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first
Act on feedback: Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding, note Minor for later
Full protocol:references/requesting-code-review.md
Verification Gates Protocol
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
Gate Function
IDENTIFY command → RUN full command → READ output → VERIFY confirms claim → THEN claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Requirements
Tests pass: Test output shows 0 failures
Build succeeds: Build command exit 0
Bug fixed: Test original symptom passes
Requirements met: Line-by-line checklist verified
Verification Commands
# Tests (prefer bun)
bun test # or: npm test
# Build
bun run build # or: npm run build
# Lint
bun run lint # or: npm run lint
# Type check
bun run typecheck # or: bunx tsc --noEmit
Red Flags - STOP
Using "should"/"probably"/"seems to", expressing satisfaction before verification, committing without verification, trusting agent reports, ANY wording implying success without running verification
Full protocol:references/verification-before-completion.md
Integration with Workflows
Subagent-Driven: Review after EACH task, verify before moving to next
Pull Requests: Verify tests pass, request code-reviewer review before merge
General: Apply verification gates before any status claims, push back on invalid feedback
Bottom Line
Technical rigor over social performance - No performative agreement
Systematic review processes - Use code-reviewer subagent
Evidence before claims - Verification gates always
Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.
