Skip to content
All Skills

Review Implementing

Process and implement code review feedback systematically. Use when user provides reviewer comments, PR feedback, code review notes, or asks to implement suggestions from reviews.

Software Engineering|v1|Updated 7/14/2026|GitHub source
MCP get_skill({ skillId: "review-feedback-implementation-ff69e184" })

Use this skill with your agent

Create a free account and connect via MCP

Get Started Free
# Review Feedback Implementation

Systematically process and implement changes based on code review feedback.

## When to Use

- Provides reviewer comments or feedback
- Pastes PR review notes
- Mentions implementing review suggestions
- Says "address these comments" or "implement feedback"
- Shares list of changes requested by reviewers

## Systematic Workflow

### 1. Parse Reviewer Notes

Identify individual feedback items:
- Split numbered lists (1., 2., etc.)
- Handle bullet points or unnumbered feedback
- Extract distinct change requests
- Clarify ambiguous items before starting

### 2. Create Todo List

Use TodoWrite tool to create actionable tasks:
- Each feedback item becomes one or more todos
- Break down complex feedback into smaller tasks
- Make tasks specific and measurable
- Mark first task as `in_progress` before starting

Example:
```
- Add type hints to extract function
- Fix duplicate tag detection logic
- Update docstring in chain.py
- Add unit test for edge case
```

### 3. Implement Changes Systematically

For each todo item:

**Locate relevant code:**
- Use Grep to search for functions/classes
- Use Glob to find files by pattern
- Read current implementation

**Make changes:**
- Use Edit tool for modifications
- Follow project conventions (CLAUDE.md)
- Preserve existing functionality unless changing behavior

**Verify changes:**
- Check syntax correctness
- Run relevant tests if applicable
- Ensure changes address reviewer's intent

**Update status:**
- Mark todo as `completed` immediately after finishing
- Move to next todo (only one `in_progress` at a time)

### 4. Handle Different Feedback Types

**Code changes:**
- Use Edit tool for existing code
- Follow type hint conventions (PEP 604/585)
- Maintain consistent style

**New features:**
- Create new files with Write tool if needed
- Add corresponding tests
- Update documentation

**Documentation:**
- Update docstrings following project style
- Modify markdown files as needed
- Keep explanations concise

**Tests:**
- Write tests as functions, not classes
- Use descriptive names
- Follow pytest conventions

**Refactoring:**
- Preserve functionality
- Improve code structure
- Run tests to verify no regressions

### 5. Validation

After implementing changes:
- Run affected tests
- Check for linting errors: `uv run ruff check`
- Verify changes don't break existing functionality

### 6. Communication

Keep user informed:
- Update todo list in real-time
- Ask for clarification on ambiguous feedback
- Report blockers or challenges
- Summarize changes at completion

## Edge Cases

**Conflicting feedback:**
- Ask user for guidance
- Explain conflict clearly

**Breaking changes required:**
- Notify user before implementing
- Discuss impact and alternatives

**Tests fail after changes:**
- Fix tests before marking todo complete
- Ensure all related tests pass

**Referenced code doesn't exist:**
- Ask user for clarification
- Verify understanding before proceeding

## Important Guidelines

- **Always use TodoWrite** for tracking progress
- **Mark todos completed immediately** after each item
- **Only one todo in_progress** at any time
- **Don't batch completions** - update status in real-time
- **Ask questions** for unclear feedback
- **Run tests** if changes affect tested code
- **Follow CLAUDE.md conventions** for all code changes
- **Use conventional commits** if creating commits afterward
#broad-capability#engineering-workflow#productivity#visual-documentation#code#reviewpythonuvruff

Related Skills

More skills in Software Engineering

Accessibility Standards

Comprehensive web accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.2 AA, with 38+ anti-patterns, legal enforcement context (EAA, ADA Title II), WAI-ARIA patterns, and framework-specific fixes for modern web frameworks and libraries.

#github-copilot#accessibilityMIT

Accord

Authoring unified specification packages across Business/Development/Design teams via staged elaboration (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria). No code. Use when authoring cross-team specs, building L0-L3 packages, or aligning Biz/Dev/Design on a single source of truth.

#broad-capability#developmentMIT

Acquire Codebase Knowledge

Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.

#github-copilot#documentationMIT

Acreadiness Assess

Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.

#github-copilot#planningMIT

Acreadiness Generate Instructions

Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.

#github-copilot#skillMIT

Acreadiness Policy

Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.

#github-copilot#planningMIT