obra/superpowers
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
npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/receiving-code-review"Quick start
Install it or open the source, trigger it with a clear task, then follow the source workflow.
npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/receiving-code-review"Use receiving-code-review to help me with: [describe your task]. Before you begin, tell me what input you need, the steps you will follow, and the expected output.
No structured workflow was detected; follow the original SKILL.md below.
Continue to the workflowDirect answers
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
It is most relevant to software development workflows. Confirm the original prerequisites before using it in production.
SkillSignal detected this source-specific command: npx skills add https://github.com/obra/superpowers --skill "skills/receiving-code-review". Inspect the repository and command before running it.
The upstream source does not declare a dedicated Agent platform.
No obvious permission action was detected by the static rules. This is not proof that the Skill is safe.
This page combines upstream documentation with deterministic repository, quality, and static-risk signals. It is not described as a manual test or security review.
SkillSignal brief
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
Useful in these contexts
Core capabilities
Distilled from the source
About 2 min · 14 sections
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…
Quality breakdown
Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.
Compare before choosing
These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.
Use when processing code review feedback (bot or human) before changing anything — triages, verifies, and pushes back with technical reasoning — even when the user just says 'fix the comments'.
Use when the user says "review this", "check my code", or wants feedback on changes. Reviews for correctness, quality, security, and coding standards.
Turn ambiguous or high-impact product and engineering changes into scoped, verifiable acceptance criteria before or alongside implementation. Use when a user asks to clarify a feature, define acceptance criteria, de-risk a security/data/migration/integration change, prepare implementation requirements for another agent, or make a complex request testable. Do not trigger for trivial edits, straightforward fixes, active debugging, code review, or implementation requests whose acceptance conditions
Umbrella workflow for 67 public skills: Full Send, copy, design, code review, SEO, launch packaging, MCP QA, iOS and Android app shipping, and creator workflows. Loads the full public skill pack.
Use when working with Git — branch naming, commit messages, PR creation, rebasing, or the code review process — even when the user says 'push this' or 'merge the branch' without naming Git.
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 each
NEVER:
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.
Example:
your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
grep codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions
Push back when:
How to push back:
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.
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!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
If you pushed back and were wrong:
✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining
State the correction factually and move on.
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
Performative Agreement (Bad):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
Technical Verification (Good):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "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?"
YAGNI (Good):
Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
Unclear Item (Good):
your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
When 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.