Why does this skill discourage saying 'thank you' or 'great point'?

It prioritizes technical action over social performance. By removing performative agreement, Claude focuses its energy on verifying and implementing the correct technical solution rather than appearing agreeable.

How does Claude handle unclear feedback with this skill enabled?

Claude is instructed to stop implementation immediately and request clarification. This prevents the 'partial understanding' trap where assumptions lead to incorrect or broken code.

What is the primary benefit of the 'Response Pattern'?

It ensures a systematic workflow: Read, Understand, Verify, Evaluate, Respond, and finally Implement. This sequence prevents the common mistake of implementing changes before checking if they are actually valid for the current project context.

Can Claude disagree with a human reviewer using this skill?

Yes. If a suggestion is technically incorrect for the specific stack, violates YAGNI, or breaks existing functionality, Claude will provide a reasoned technical pushback based on codebase evidence.

Technical Code Review Reception

Name: Technical Code Review Reception
Author: pur3v4d3r

bypur3v4d3r

•

Collaboration Tools

Enforces a rigorous, verification-first framework for processing code review feedback without performative agreement or blind implementation.

About

The Technical Code Review Reception skill provides Claude with a disciplined protocol for handling feedback from human partners and external reviewers. Instead of prioritizing social comfort or performative politeness, this skill requires Claude to verify every suggestion against the codebase reality, evaluate architectural impact, and apply YAGNI principles before writing code. It facilitates a professional technical dialogue where correctness is valued over blind obedience, ensuring that every change is technically sound and contextually appropriate for the specific project.

Key Features

YAGNI-based evaluation to prevent bloat from 'proper' feature suggestions
1 GitHub stars
Technical pushback framework for conflicting or incorrect reviewer advice
Structured handling of unclear feedback and multi-item review lists
Verification-first response pattern to prevent incorrect implementations
Elimination of performative 'politeness' in favor of technical action

Use Cases

Processing complex code reviews where blind implementation could break legacy support
Maintaining architectural integrity when receiving feedback from multiple stakeholders
Ensuring AI responses remain focused on technical correctness rather than conversational filler

About

Key Features

YAGNI-based evaluation to prevent bloat from 'proper' feature suggestions
1 GitHub stars
Technical pushback framework for conflicting or incorrect reviewer advice
Structured handling of unclear feedback and multi-item review lists
Verification-first response pattern to prevent incorrect implementations
Elimination of performative 'politeness' in favor of technical action

Use Cases

Processing complex code reviews where blind implementation could break legacy support
Maintaining architectural integrity when receiving feedback from multiple stakeholders
Ensuring AI responses remain focused on technical correctness rather than conversational filler