Refine receiving-code-review guidance for subagent review feedback

[stablegenius49]

Summary

• broaden receiving-code-review trigger description to explicitly include subagent/spec-review feedback
• add a dedicated subagent-review handling section with a required disposition pattern (FIXED / DISAGREE / NEEDS CLARIFICATION)
• explicitly discourage vague/dismissive acknowledgments without action

Validation

• python3 frontmatter parse check for skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

Closes #593

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Documentation update to the code-review receiving skill that adds structured guidance for handling subagent-generated reviews, introducing a quote-classify-verify-respond workflow with explicit disposition tracking (FIXED, DISAGREE, NEEDS CLARIFICATION).

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation: Code Review Skill skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md	Updated description emphasizing verification of review feedback; added new subsection "From Subagent Reviews" with structured workflow for handling subagent findings (quote, classify, verify, respond); integrated pattern into external reviewers handling; prohibited vague dismissals.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

Possibly related issues

• obra/superpowers#593: Directly addresses the addition of explicit subagent-review handling (quote/classify/verify/respond) with concrete disposition tracking, resolving concern that the skill lacked proper subagent feedback guidance.

Poem

🐰 A rabbit hops through feedback streams,
Now sorting thoughts and subagent dreams,
Quote, classify, and verify true—
Concrete responses, not "I'll review"! ✨
Structured wisdom for the wise.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title directly and specifically describes the main change: refining code review guidance to address subagent review feedback handling.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description clearly relates to the changeset, outlining the three main improvements made to the receiving-code-review skill documentation.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Tip

Try Coding Plans. Let us write the prompt for your AI agent so you can ship faster (with fewer bugs).
Share your feedback on Discord.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md`:
- Around line 91-103: The fenced code block that begins with "FOR each subagent
finding:" needs a language annotation to satisfy MD040; update the fence by
adding a language token (e.g., change ``` to ```text) so the block is explicitly
marked as a text code block, leaving the block contents unchanged; locate the
fenced block containing the exact "FOR each subagent finding:" lines and modify
only the opening backticks to include the language.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: c915d67a-5843-4b7a-bc99-58ed7daa8f7c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e4a2375 and c788882.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Add a language to this fenced block.

Line 91 currently violates MD040, so this section will keep failing markdownlint until the fence is annotated.

Suggested fix

-```
+```text
 FOR each subagent finding:
   1. Quote the exact finding in your own words
   2. Classify it: spec mismatch / code-quality / test gap / false positive
   3. Verify against plan + code before changing anything
   4. Respond with concrete disposition:
      - FIXED: what changed + where
      - DISAGREE: technical reason + evidence
      - NEEDS CLARIFICATION: exact question

 NEVER dismiss findings with vague language like:
   "not a big problem" / "looks fine" / "excellent discovery" (without action)

</details>

<details>
<summary>🧰 Tools</summary>

<details>
<summary>🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.21.0)</summary>

[warning] 91-91: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified

(MD040, fenced-code-language)

</details>

</details>

<details>
<summary>🤖 Prompt for AI Agents</summary>

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In @skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md around lines 91 - 103, The fenced code
block that begins with "FOR each subagent finding:" needs a language annotation
to satisfy MD040; update the fence by adding a language token (e.g., change totext) so the block is explicitly marked as a text code block, leaving the
block contents unchanged; locate the fenced block containing the exact "FOR each
subagent finding:" lines and modify only the opening backticks to include the
language.

</details>

<!-- fingerprinting:phantom:triton:grasshopper -->

<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->