Publisher: Jesse Vincent / Prime Radiant · Editorial profile by AI Tools Ratings · Review method
What task is this skill designed for?
Evaluate three synthetic review comments: one real bug, one ambiguous request and one incorrect suggestion about legacy compatibility.
What input and output should you expect?
Input: The reviewed diff, relevant tests, supported environment requirements and complete comment context. Use invented comments rather than exposing private review threads.
Output: A reasoned disposition for each comment, targeted fixes for valid issues and evidence for any disagreement or unresolved question.
What does it need to run?
Repository access and a test runtime. Access to a review platform is optional; external replies are separate communications and need their own authorization.
Publisher README documents Claude Code, Codex and Cursor installation paths, among other harnesses. Tool availability and behavior depend on the host; this is publisher-declared support, not a cross-platform test result.
How should you approach installation?
- Review the pinned folder and its referenced files before enabling the workflow. The folder belongs to the broader Superpowers plugin, not an independently verified standalone installer.
- Follow the publisher README for your chosen coding-agent platform. The publisher documents several harnesses; use the instructions for your installed version and review plugin hooks and permissions.
- Try the suggested task in a disposable repository with synthetic inputs. Check the acceptance list before applying the workflow to shared work.
Installation guide: discovery, dependencies and runtime checks
What files, accounts or data can it access?
Reads code and feedback, can edit source and run tests. The source discusses replying in review threads; enabling the workflow should not silently authorize external messages.
What does the skill cost?
No separate skill purchase is specified in the MIT-licensed source. Coding-agent subscriptions, model tokens, test compute and any external services have their own charges. Review or repeated execution can increase model usage.
What are its limits and alternatives?
The reviewer and agent can both be wrong. A passing test does not resolve a product-policy disagreement. Ambiguous feedback may require clarification, and blanket acceptance can remove necessary compatibility behavior.
Use Requesting Code Review to prepare an initial review package. Use Receiving Code Review after feedback arrives, especially when comments differ in validity or depend on unstated assumptions.
What could you ask in a small trial?
Try this with a small sample:
Assess these three review comments against the code and supported-version policy. Fix the demonstrated bug, explain the incorrect compatibility suggestion with evidence and identify the unclear requirement. Do not send replies externally.
How would you verify the result?
- Every comment receives a disposition grounded in code or requirements.
- The valid fix has a relevant verification result.
- No external message is sent, and uncertainty is not converted into an unsupported agreement.
Use a baseline and record acceptance evidence before treating a successful task as a reliable workflow.
Which source and license were checked?
Read the reviewed SKILL.md at its pinned commit · Complete reviewed folder
Repository and current publisher guidance
Checked:
MIT — repository LICENSE at the reviewed commit. Dependencies and external services retain their own terms. License evidence
Version details and review scope
Source: obra/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review
Reviewed commit: 2ce8aa15d05bd57213e6f746f953aafb7ded7a8b
SKILL.md SHA-256: 091df1629510af1b92fc4abd6f96732ebedb4cb2c0f3457e8f2740b0504a2438
Source-document review. This profile covers the source workflow, stated dependencies and license evidence. See our editorial methodology for how we distinguish source reviews and hands-on evaluations.