flow-receiving-review
Review Feedback with Technical Rigor
Code review feedback can be incomplete, unclear, or incorrect. This skill helps Claude, Codex, and Claude Code verify feedback before changing code.
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Review the Skillstore skill "flow-receiving-review" from https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.
Agent-readable resources
Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.
Test it
Using "flow-receiving-review". A reviewer says the caching change is unsafe but gives no reproduction steps.
Expected outcome:
The skill would classify the comment as unclear, request reproduction details, and avoid changing the cache logic until evidence is available.
Using "flow-receiving-review". A reviewer suggests renaming a helper for style consistency.
Expected outcome:
The skill would identify a style preference, check project naming patterns, and accept the change if it matches established conventions.
Using "flow-receiving-review". A reviewer reports a possible security issue in authentication handling.
Expected outcome:
The skill would treat the comment as high priority, verify the attack scenario, test the fix, and document the result in the response.
Security Audit
SafeAll static command-execution findings are false positives caused by Markdown code fences, YAML examples, or inline references. The path traversal findings are relative documentation links, not filesystem operations. No prompt injection, data exfiltration, or unauthorized execution intent was found.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (18)
📁 Filesystem access (3)
Share & cite this report
Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.
Copy report link
https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review/audits/8?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Embed card
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA citation
Dimon94. (2026). flow-receiving-review security audit report (audit version 8) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review/audits/8BibTeX citation
@techreport{dimon94-dimon94-flow-receiving-review-2026,
author = {Dimon94},
title = {flow-receiving-review security audit report (audit version 8)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {8},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review/audits/8},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "flow-receiving-review security audit report (audit version 8)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "Dimon94"
date-released: "2026-07-06"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/dimon94-flow-receiving-review/audits/8"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:dimon94-flow-receiving-review:audit:8"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: HighWhat You Can Build
Triage Pull Request Feedback
Classify each review comment and decide whether to implement, clarify, or challenge it with evidence.
Prepare Review Responses
Draft clear replies that acknowledge valid issues, ask precise questions, or explain technical trade-offs.
Coach Review Discipline
Teach developers to avoid blind agreement and verify reviewer claims before changing code.
Try These Prompts
Use flow-receiving-review on this reviewer comment: [paste comment]. Tell me if it is a bug, preference, performance issue, or security concern.
Evaluate these review comments with flow-receiving-review. For each one, decide whether to accept, ask for clarification, or push back with evidence.
Apply flow-receiving-review to draft concise replies for these comments. Include the evidence I should gather before changing code.
Use flow-receiving-review as a review-response checklist for this pull request. Map comments to fixes, risks, tests, and final responses.
Best Practices
- Read every reviewer comment fully before planning changes.
- Collect evidence through tests, reproduction steps, or project standards.
- Explain trade-offs clearly when you disagree with a suggestion.
Avoid
- Implementing a requested change before understanding the concern.
- Rejecting feedback without evidence or a clear alternative.
- Treating style preferences as defects without checking project norms.