$ loading_
帮助开发者严谨处理代码评审意见，做出合理回应、修订与技术判断。
复制安装指令，让 AI 自动完成配置 · 推荐新手
请帮我安装 askskill 上的 "Code Review Reception" 技能： 1. 下载 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/obra/clank/main/skills/collaboration/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md 2. 保存为 ~/.claude/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md 3. 装好后重载技能，告诉我可以用了
请根据以下代码评审意见，帮我起草一份专业回应。要求区分：我会采纳的建议、需要澄清的问题、我不同意但要礼貌说明理由的部分。评审意见：'这个函数太长，错误处理不一致，而且缓存逻辑可能导致并发问题。'
一份结构清晰、技术理由充分的评审回复草稿。
我收到了多条代码评审反馈，请帮我把它们整理成可执行的修改计划，按优先级分组，并标注哪些需要先验证再修改。反馈包括性能、命名、测试覆盖率和边界条件处理。
按优先级排序的修订清单，包含验证建议与实施步骤。
下面是一条代码评审建议，请帮我分析是否应该采纳。请从正确性、可维护性、性能影响、团队规范四个维度判断，并给出建议回应。评审建议：'把当前显式的错误处理改成统一的全局异常捕获。'
一份多维度分析结果，以及是否采纳该建议的结论和回复话术。
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
NEVER:
INSTEAD:
IF any item is unclear:
STOP - do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
grep codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions
Push back when:
How to push back:
Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
When feedback IS correct:
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
…
帮助你为变量选择清晰准确、易维护的命名，提升代码可读性。
在继续开发前发起代码审查，依据计划或需求检查实现质量与偏差。