handle-feedback
Skill0 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub
Checks review feedback against the code and answers it with fixes and evidence. Use when code review feedback from a person or a pull request has arrived, before implementing the suggestions.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- cerredz/vidbyte-memorytheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- cerredz/vidbyte-memory★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adversarial-reviewSkill
- brainstormSkill
- execute-planSkill
- find-root-causeSkill
- finish-branchSkill
- prove-doneSkill
- tddSkill
- triage-open-itemsSkill
- update-specSkill
- write-planSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
When you find something worth doing later that this work does not include, add it as an item to .dietpowers/trackers/open-items.md, …
- Distinctive: line 17
Read all the feedback before reacting to any of it.
- Distinctive: line 19
Check each item against the codebase.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Handle Feedback
Review feedback is a claim about the code, made by someone who may be missing context. Check each item before acting on it, and answer with changes and evidence rather than agreement.
Ask your partner one question at a time, in plain text; do not use the AskUserQuestion tool, because some clients show only the tool's question and drop the text around it. Put what your partner needs to answer in the same message: the problem and why it matters, then the options, recommended first, each with a short bold label in words (never numbers or letters) and a one-line reason. End with a line naming those labels in the same order, such as Reply with **new PR**, **straight to main**, or **drop it**., and make the question the last thing in the message, after any tool use. Your partner may answer with an option, their own alternative, a question or an aside. Keep messages short: lead with the decision, then only the detail needed to answer it. Before a stretch of work that takes more than a moment, such as dispatching a reviewer, writing a spec or plan, or fixing findings, say in one line what you are about to do; after your partner answers, say what comes next before starting it.
When you find something worth doing later that this work does not include, add it as an item to .dietpowers/trackers/open-items.md, following ## Open items in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/trackers.md, and say so in one line.
Commit your work on the feature branch as you go: the spec and plan may be held back, code never is. If you are on main, master or the plan's Base: branch, first ask once: "I'll create branch <name> for this work. Reply with yes or no." If your partner declines, do no code work until a branch is agreed. Nothing is pushed or merged without asking.
- Find the pull request and its comments (
gh pr view --comments; inline review comments viagh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments), and read the spec and plan it links. - Read all the feedback before reacting to any of it.
- Restate each item as a technical requirement in your own words. If an item could be read two ways that lead to different changes, ask about it before implementing it or anything that depends on it; carry on with the rest.
- Check each item against the codebase. Does it hold here? Does it break something that currently works? Is there a reason the code is the way it is? Does the reviewer have the full context?
- Where a suggestion adds a feature nothing uses, grep for callers first and say what you found. An endpoint nothing calls should be removed, not implemented properly.
- Where a suggestion is wrong, push back with technical reasoning and point at the tests or code that show it. Where it conflicts with a decision your partner already made, raise it with them rather than choosing for them.
- Where an item would alter behavior the spec describes, invoke the
dietpowers:update-specskill before implementing it. - Where you cannot verify a claim, say what you would need to verify it instead of proceeding on assumption.
- Implement in order: things that break or are insecure, then simple fixes, then complex ones. Start each fix with a test that reproduces the problem and fails, then make it pass. Check for regressions. Commit each fix with its test.
- Draft a reply for each item: for correct feedback, the fix and where it landed, without agreement or thanks; for pushback, the reasoning and evidence; if you pushed back and turned out to be wrong, what you checked and what it showed.
- Show your partner the drafts and ask one question: "Push the fixes and post these replies? Reply with yes or no." Post nothing yet: replies must not cite changes the pull request does not have.
Terminal state: invoke the dietpowers:prove-done skill, then the dietpowers:finish-branch skill to push the fixes to the open pull request. Once the push succeeds, post the approved replies; on GitHub, reply inside each comment thread (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies), not as a new top-level comment. Then, if .dietpowers/trackers/open-items.md has open items, ask: "There are <N> open items. Triage them now? Reply with triage or later." On triage, invoke the dietpowers:triage-open-items skill.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

