From ironflow
Processes code review feedback rigorously to prevent regressions: read all comments, verify against codebase, categorize as valid/incorrect, implement safely. Use for PRs, teammates, or subagents.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ironflow:receiving-reviewThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Process review feedback with technical rigor, not social compliance. Verify before implementing, and push back when the feedback is wrong.
Process review feedback with technical rigor, not social compliance. Verify before implementing, and push back when the feedback is wrong.
Why: The default instinct is to agree with every review comment and immediately implement it. This leads to unnecessary changes, regressions from implementing bad suggestions, and "performative compliance" that wastes everyone's time.
Read the complete review before responding to anything. Understand the full picture before making changes.
Before implementing a suggestion, check whether it's technically correct:
After making changes based on valid feedback, run tests and verification again. Review fixes can introduce regressions. If the changes are significant (not just naming or style), re-run the relevant serial-review stages to verify the fixes don't break spec compliance or code quality.
When pushing back, provide evidence: point to code, tests, or documentation that supports your position. A respectful technical disagreement is more valuable than blind compliance.
After implementing valid fixes:
npx claudepluginhub zhijiang-li1111/ironflow --plugin ironflowGuides creation, editing, and verification of skills for AI coding agents using test-driven development with subagent scenarios. Use when authoring or debugging skills.