Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
Triggers when receiving code review feedback to verify technical merit before implementing, completing tasks to request systematic subagent review, or making status claims requiring fresh verification evidence. Enforces evidence-based rigor over performative agreement.
/plugin marketplace add GGPrompts/my-plugins/plugin install code-review@my-pluginsThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
references/code-review-reception.mdreferences/requesting-code-review.mdreferences/verification-before-completion.mdGuide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
Code review requires three distinct practices:
Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files.
Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
Trigger when:
Reference: references/code-review-reception.md
Trigger when:
Reference: references/requesting-code-review.md
Trigger when:
Reference: references/verification-before-completion.md
SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback
│ ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
│ ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
│ └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
│
├─ Completed work
│ ├─ Major feature/task? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│ └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│
└─ About to claim status
├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
└─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first
READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT
Full protocol: references/code-review-reception.md
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) and HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)Full protocol: references/requesting-code-review.md
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
IDENTIFY command → RUN full command → READ output → VERIFY confirms claim → THEN claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
Using "should"/"probably"/"seems to", expressing satisfaction before verification, committing without verification, trusting agent reports, ANY wording implying success without running verification
Full protocol: references/verification-before-completion.md
Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.
Use when working with Payload CMS projects (payload.config.ts, collections, fields, hooks, access control, Payload API). Use when debugging validation errors, security issues, relationship queries, transactions, or hook behavior.