From coordinator
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 claudepluginhub oduffy-delphi/coordinator-claudeThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Generates design tokens/docs from CSS/Tailwind/styled-components codebases, audits visual consistency across 10 dimensions, detects AI slop in UI.
Records polished WebM UI demo videos of web apps using Playwright with cursor overlay, natural pacing, and three-phase scripting. Activates for demo, walkthrough, screen recording, or tutorial requests.
Delivers idiomatic Kotlin patterns for null safety, immutability, sealed classes, coroutines, Flows, extensions, DSL builders, and Gradle DSL. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Kotlin code.
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:
the PM: "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."
This is where coordinators most often fail. You dispatched an Opus-level agent to review your work. Use everything they give you.
WHEN processing review agent output:
1. Read the ENTIRE review — do not skim
2. Build a TRIAGE TABLE for EVERY item (Critical, Important, Minor, nitpick — ALL of them):
| # | Finding | Disposition | Reasoning |
|---|---------|-------------|-----------|
| 1 | [summary] | Applied / Captured / Dismissed | [what you did or why] |
Dispositions — every finding gets exactly one:
- Applied: implemented the fix (state what changed)
- Captured: deferred to backlog/debt tracker (state where and why not now)
- Dismissed: genuinely disagree or requires PM input (state reasoning)
"Captured" is NOT a parking lot — it means a concrete entry exists somewhere.
3. Do NOT "note for later" — there is no later
4. Do NOT cherry-pick favorites and declare the review "addressed"
5. Verify your triage table is 100% complete before moving on
6. Present the completed triage table in your response
FORBIDDEN:
- "I've addressed the key items from the review" (what about the rest?)
- "Most of the feedback has been incorporated" (what was dropped?)
- Summarizing the review without acting on every point
- Treating Minor/P3 items as optional
Why this matters: We are spending Opus-level agents on reviews. If you gloss over items, that investment is wasted. The whole point is excellent code and docs — every item is an opportunity.
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 the PM's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with the PM first
the PM'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
the PM'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:
Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
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):
the PM: "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.
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.