receiving-code-review Skill
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 Published by microsoft in FluidFramework.
Decision snapshot
Is this a fit?
Testing, Includes SKILL.md, Reusable instructions
Compatibility not yet detected.
Permission behavior not yet detected.
Copy skill directory
2 months ago · MIT license
No specific cautions were detected. Review the source and requested permissions before installing.
What is receiving-code-review Skill?
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 Published by microsoft in FluidFramework. This profile combines repository metadata with install, compatibility, and usage signals so developers can quickly decide whether it fits their agent workflow before opening the source repository.
Automated repository signals based on public metadata such as recency, license, installation evidence, and adoption. These are not a security audit or endorsement. See how SkillIndex evaluates profiles.
Key capabilities
- Includes SKILL.md support
- Reusable instructions support
- Testing
- Testing use cases
Declared skill metadata
- Source file: .agency/plugins/nori/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md
These fields retain source and confidence evidence from the indexed SKILL.md.
Compatibility and setup
- Install or run with Copy skill directory
When to use receiving-code-review Skill
- Use it for testing.
Built with
Editorial notes
Source
- Creator: microsoft
- Repository: microsoft/FluidFramework
- Skill file: .agency/plugins/nori/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md
What it does
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
Skill instructions
Code Review Reception Overview Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Core principle: Fetch feedback → Verify → Implement → Re-test → Push updates. Announce at start: "I'm using the Nori Receiving Code Review skill to handle this feedback." The Process Step 0: Create Todo List For multi-item feedback, use TodoWrite: - [ ] Fetch and read all PR comments - [ ] Clarify unclear items (if any) - [ ] Fix item 1: [description] - [ ] Fix item 2: [description] ... - [ ] Run tests/lint/format - [ ] Push updates Why: Prevents skipping items and provides visibility to user. Step 1: Fetch PR Comments Determine PR number from context: - User mentions PR number: Use that - Current branch: Run gh pr view --json number -q .number Fetch all comments: bash View all comments (review + general) gh pr view [PR-NUMBER] --comments Read completely before reacting. Step 2: Understand and Clarify Apply these checks to each item: - [ ] Can I restate this requirement in my own words?
Verified compatibility and discovery
Frequently asked questions
What is receiving-code-review?
receiving-code-review is a open-source AI agent skill with Copy skill directory. Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not.
Who is receiving-code-review best for?
receiving-code-review is best for reusing agent instructions, scripts, and references, testing workflows.
How do I install receiving-code-review?
Install or run receiving-code-review using Copy skill directory. Check receiving-code-review for the latest setup command.
Is receiving-code-review actively maintained?
receiving-code-review may need a closer maintenance check before production use.
Project health auto-fetched from the source repository.
Maintain this resource?
Review this source-backed profile, send a correction with evidence, or link to it from your documentation. Claims verify your relationship to the project; profile facts still require source evidence and editorial review.
