Add new methodology skills for enhanced development workflows

.claude/skills/methodology/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+# Receiving Code Review
+
+## Description
+
+Workflow for processing code review feedback effectively. Prioritize issues, apply fixes, and iterate until approval.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- After receiving review feedback
+- Processing automated review results
+- Handling reviewer comments on PRs
+- Iterating after code review rejection
+
+---
+
+## Feedback Categories
+
+### Critical Issues
+
+**Definition**: Must fix before proceeding. Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, broken functionality.
+
+```markdown
+Examples:
+- SQL injection vulnerability
+- Unhandled null pointer
+- Data corruption possibility
+- Authentication bypass
+```
+
+**Response**: Fix immediately. Do not proceed until resolved.
+
+### Important Issues
+
+**Definition**: Should fix before proceeding. Code quality, maintainability, potential bugs.
+
+```markdown
+Examples:
+- Missing error handling
+- Inefficient algorithm
+- Poor naming
+- Missing tests for edge cases
+```
+
+**Response**: Fix before merging. May defer to follow-up if blocking.
+
+### Minor Issues
+
+**Definition**: Can fix later. Style preferences, optional improvements.
+
+```markdown
+Examples:
+- Variable naming suggestions
+- Comment improvements
+- Minor refactoring opportunities
+- Documentation polish
+```
+
+**Response**: Note for later. Can merge without addressing.
+
+---
+
+## Processing Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Categorize All Feedback
+
+```markdown
+## Review Feedback
+
+### Critical (Must Fix)
+1. Line 45: SQL query vulnerable to injection
+2. Line 89: User data exposed in logs
+
+### Important (Should Fix)
+1. Line 23: Missing null check
+2. Line 67: Test doesn't cover error path
+
+### Minor (Can Defer)
+1. Line 12: Consider renaming 'x' to 'count'
+2. Line 34: Could extract to helper function
+```
+
+### Step 2: Fix Critical Issues First
+
+```markdown
+Addressing critical issue 1:
+- File: src/db/queries.ts:45
+- Issue: SQL injection vulnerability
+- Fix: Use parameterized query
+- Verification: Tested with malicious input
+```
+
+### Step 3: Fix Important Issues
+
+```markdown
+Addressing important issue 1:
+- File: src/services/user.ts:23
+- Issue: Missing null check
+- Fix: Added guard clause
+- Verification: Test added for null case
+```
+
+### Step 4: Note Minor Issues
+
+```markdown
+Deferred for follow-up:
+- Line 12: Variable rename (tracked in TODO)
+- Line 34: Extract helper (low priority)
+```
+
+### Step 5: Request Re-Review
+
+After fixes applied, request re-review with:
+
+```markdown
+## Re-Review Request
+
+### Fixed Issues
+- [x] SQL injection (line 45) - Now uses parameterized query
+- [x] Data exposure (line 89) - Removed user data from logs
+- [x] Null check (line 23) - Added guard clause
+- [x] Test coverage (line 67) - Added error path test
+
+### Deferred (Minor)
+- Variable rename (line 12) - Will address in cleanup PR
+
+### Changes Since Last Review
+- 4 files modified
+- 2 tests added
+- All previous feedback addressed
+```
+
+---
+
+## Handling Disagreements
+
+### When You Disagree with Feedback
+
+```markdown
+1. Don't dismiss immediately
+2. Consider the reviewer's perspective
+3. Explain your reasoning
+4. Provide evidence (code, tests, docs)
+5. Be open to being wrong
+6. Escalate if needed (tech lead, team discussion)
+```
+
+### Disagreement Response Template
+
+```markdown
+## Re: [Feedback item]
+
+I considered this feedback carefully. Here's my perspective:
+
+**Reviewer's concern**: [Their point]
+
+**My reasoning**: [Why I did it this way]
+
+**Evidence**: [Tests, benchmarks, docs supporting approach]
+
+**Proposed resolution**: [Accept, discuss, or defer]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Common Feedback Types
+
+### Security Issues
+
+Always fix immediately:
+
+```typescript
+// Before (vulnerable)
+const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`;
+
+// After (secure)
+const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1';
+const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);
+```
+
+### Error Handling
+
+Add comprehensive handling:
+
+```typescript
+// Before
+const user = await getUser(id);
+return user.name;
+
+// After
+const user = await getUser(id);
+if (!user) {
+  throw new NotFoundError(`User ${id} not found`);
+}
+return user.name;
+```
+
+### Test Coverage
+
+Add missing tests:
+
+```typescript
+// Before: Only happy path tested
+it('should return user', async () => {
+  const user = await getUser('valid-id');
+  expect(user).toBeDefined();
+});
+
+// After: Edge cases covered
+it('should return user', async () => { /* ... */ });
+it('should throw NotFoundError for missing user', async () => { /* ... */ });
+it('should throw ValidationError for invalid id', async () => { /* ... */ });
+```
+
+### Performance
+
+Address efficiency concerns:
+
+```typescript
+// Before (N+1 query)
+const users = await getUsers();
+for (const user of users) {
+  user.orders = await getOrders(user.id);
+}
+
+// After (batch query)
+const users = await getUsers();
+const userIds = users.map(u => u.id);
+const ordersByUser = await getOrdersForUsers(userIds);
+users.forEach(u => u.orders = ordersByUser[u.id]);
+```
+
+---
+
+## Re-Review Checklist
+
+Before requesting re-review:
+
+- [ ] All Critical issues fixed
+- [ ] All Important issues fixed (or explicitly deferred with reason)
+- [ ] Minor issues noted for follow-up
+- [ ] Tests added/updated for fixes
+- [ ] Full test suite passes
+- [ ] Changes summarized for reviewer
+
+---
+
+## Iteration Limits
+
+```markdown
+If review requires 3+ cycles:
+1. STOP
+2. Schedule discussion with reviewer
+3. Identify root cause of misalignment
+4. May need design discussion
+5. Don't keep iterating endlessly
+```
+
+---