receiving-code-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited receiving-code-review (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Source: obra/superpowers (MIT)
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 eachNEVER:
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.FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement: blocking issues → simple fixes → complex fixes
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressionsHow to push back: Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness. Reference working tests/code.
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!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it.
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement. No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.