receiving-code-review

Code Review Reception

Portable helper anchor (single-statement). The bundled-helper commands in this skill resolve the skill directory inline at each call site via ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR:-<absolute skill base directory this runner reports in context>}. When $CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR is set and non-empty (Claude Code), run each command exactly as written. Otherwise locate the directory yourself — this text lives in a file inside it, whose sibling ../../scripts/ directory exists — by replacing the placeholder with the skill base directory the runner reports in context (e.g. a Base directory for this skill: line) and accepting a candidate only once ls <candidate>/../../scripts/ succeeds in the same shell the helper commands run in. If a path form is rejected, use the form that shell reports (pwd shows it); a Windows-form base directory (C:\...) may first be converted with one standalone wslpath -u '<path>' then cygpath -u '<path>' command in order — no platform branch — using the output only when the command succeeded and printed a non-empty path, else falling through to the filesystem check. Resolve the anchor inline at every call site — never capture it into a shell variable that a later statement reads, because some runners' inline-bash marshaling drops such variables. If no candidate validates — neither $CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR nor a runner-reported base directory whose ../../scripts/ exists — stop and report that the helper anchor could not be resolved rather than running a command with a broken path.

Consumer prompt extension (load first). Before doing this skill's work, load any consumer-supplied prompt extension for this skill and honor it. From the repo root, run the vendored-literal leading token first:

.prflow/vendor/prflow/scripts/load-prompt-extension.sh receiving-code-review

On a command not found / No such file / exit-127 reading, re-invoke the same helper with the .prflow/vendor/prflow/ prefix removed (scripts/load-prompt-extension.sh receiving-code-review) and route on that outcome; if that too is not found, fall back to the portable anchor form:

"${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR:-<absolute skill base directory this runner reports in context>}"/../../scripts/load-prompt-extension.sh receiving-code-review

If the invocation fails because the helper path does not exist (No such file, exit 127, or the platform equivalent), that is the anchor-resolution failure described in the Portable helper anchor note above — fix the anchor, don't report a missing extension. Otherwise, if the helper exits non-zero, a consumer extension exists but could not be loaded — surface its stderr message and do not silently proceed as if none existed. If it exits 0 and prints text, treat that text as additional instructions appended to the end of this skill's own prompt for this run — it is upgrade-safe, consumer-owned customization committed under .prflow/prompt-extensions/. If it exits 0 and prints nothing, proceed unchanged.

When a dispatching prompt supplies an explicit helper command (an orchestrator that invokes this skill inside a subagent may pre-resolve the helper path and hand you the exact command to run for this prompt extension), run that supplied command verbatim in place of the loader recipe above — do not resolve the anchor yourself for this helper — and interpret its outcome by the same exit-code rules just stated. The loader recipe above remains the behavior for a direct invocation of this skill, where no command is supplied.

DevFlow context. This skill originates in the MIT-licensed superpowers plugin (© 2025 Jesse Vincent) and has been substantially modified by DevFlow. Its inherited examples address a "human partner" you converse with and "report to." Inside DevFlow's autonomous /prflow:review-and-fix fix loop there is no interactive human in the turn: read every "your human partner" / "report to me" framing below as the loop's own escalation channels — the deferrals manifest, the pushback/decision tracking recorded in the workpad, and the PR/issue trail a human reviews later. The technical-rigor principle (verify before implementing, push back when wrong) is identical; only the audience for the pushback differs.