From nx
Use when receiving any code review feedback, before implementing any suggestion - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
npx claudepluginhub hellblazer/nexus --plugin nxThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Guides rigorous handling of code review feedback: read fully, restate for understanding, verify technical soundness against codebase, clarify unclear items, respond with reasoning before implementing.
Processes code review feedback technically: verify suggestions against codebase, clarify unclear items, push back if questionable, implement after evaluation—not blind agreement.
Evaluates code review feedback for technical accuracy, clarifies unclear points, verifies against codebase, and implements changes only after validation.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
1. READ — complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND — restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY — check claims 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 say: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for catching that!" Instead: State the fix, or push back with technical reasoning. Actions > words.
If any item is unclear: STOP. Ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before implementing any.
If suggestion seems wrong: Push back with technical reasoning — reference working tests, existing code, or architectural decisions.
Before implementing, verify:
If can't verify: say so. "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I investigate?"
When reviewer suggests "implement properly": use /nx:serena-code-nav to find all callers before accepting. If unused: "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
For multi-item feedback:
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch — [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and move on]
If you pushed back and were wrong:
✅ "You were right — I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified and you're correct. My initial read was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
State the correction factually. No apology, no over-explaining.
Reply in the comment thread (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies), not as a top-level PR comment.