Claude-skill-registry code-review-communication
Frameworks for giving and receiving code review feedback effectively. Use for PR comments, review strategies, handling disagreements, and balancing thoroughness with kindness.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/code-review-communication" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-code-review-communication && rm -rf "$T"
skills/data/code-review-communication/SKILL.mdCode Review Communication
This skill provides frameworks for effective code review communication - both giving feedback that lands well and receiving feedback without defensiveness.
When to Use This Skill
- Writing a code review comment and want it to be clear and constructive
- Receiving feedback that feels harsh and need perspective
- Want to distinguish between blocking issues and minor suggestions
- Need to communicate code quality concerns without damaging relationships
- Preparing to review a junior developer's first PR
Core Frameworks
Conventional Comments
A labeling system that makes the intent of each comment crystal clear.
Format:
[label] (decoration): explanation
Labels:
| Label | Meaning | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Highlight good work | None - encouragement |
| Minor style/preference issue | Optional |
| Improvement idea | Consider but not required |
| Must be addressed | Required before merge |
| Need clarification | Response required |
| Sharing perspective | None - FYI only |
Decorations:
- Explicitly optional(non-blocking)
- Must be resolved(blocking)
- Only if the fix is trivial(if-minor)
Examples:
praise: This error handling is really thorough - I like how you covered the edge cases. nitpick (non-blocking): Consider using a more descriptive variable name than `x`. suggestion: You could use `Object.entries()` here for cleaner iteration. issue (blocking): This SQL query is vulnerable to injection. Use parameterized queries. question: What's the expected behavior if the user cancels mid-operation? thought: I've seen this pattern cause issues with concurrent requests in the past.
Full reference:
references/conventional-comments.md
Summary-Analysis-Suggestion Method
For larger reviews or when multiple comments are needed:
- Summary - Start with what works (genuine positives)
- Analysis - Identify specific areas needing attention
- Suggestion - End with actionable recommendations
This prevents the "wall of criticism" effect that makes authors defensive.
Separating Code from Coder
The most important principle: criticize code, not people.
| Instead of... | Say... |
|---|---|
| "You wrote this wrong" | "This function could be simplified" |
| "You didn't think about X" | "There's an edge case here around X" |
| "Why did you do it this way?" | "What's the reasoning behind this approach?" |
| "You should know better" | "This is a common gotcha - here's the pattern" |
Use collaborative "we" language:
- "We should add a test for this"
- "How should we handle the null case?"
- "Let's think about the performance implications"
Blocking vs Non-Blocking
Blocking issues (must fix):
- Security vulnerabilities
- Bugs that will cause production issues
- Breaking changes to public APIs
- Missing required tests for critical paths
Non-blocking issues (nice to have):
- Style preferences
- Alternative implementations
- Minor optimizations
- Documentation improvements
Rule of thumb: If you'd be comfortable if the author ignored this comment, it's non-blocking.
Receiving Feedback
Receiving code review feedback well is equally important. See
references/receiving-feedback.md for:
- Assuming good intent
- Separating ego from code
- Asking clarifying questions
- Handling disagreements professionally
- When to take discussions offline
Related Resources
- Full label taxonomy with examplesreferences/conventional-comments.md
- Guide to receiving feedback gracefullyreferences/receiving-feedback.md
skill - For broader feedback (not just code)feedback-conversations
command - Generate a well-structured review comment/soft-skills:review-comment
Version History
- v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release
Last Updated
Date: 2025-12-26 Model: claude-opus-4-5-20251101