🇺🇸English

Google Review Conflict Resolution Skill

Use this skill when code review discussion is stuck or looping.

Default Mode

• Conflict style: evidence-first and respectful.
• Output language: English.
• Goal: unblock progress without lowering code health standards.

Inputs To Request

• Disputed review comments and current thread state.
• Relevant code excerpts and style/architecture constraints.
• Team ownership and escalation chain (tech lead, maintainer, manager).
• Time constraints (release window, emergency or normal flow).

Workflow

1. Classify the disagreement.

• Objective standard conflict (style guide, tests, correctness, safety).
• Design trade-off conflict (multiple valid options).
• Preference-only conflict (no standard violation).

1. Attempt consensus first.

• Resolve using documented standards before escalation.
• Prefer technical facts and data over opinion.

1. Ground discussion in evidence.

• Quote applicable standards or style-guide rules.
• Bring data where possible: tests, perf numbers, incident history, readability impact.
• Rewrite claims as code-health outcomes instead of personal preference.

1. Decide local resolution path.

• If one option clearly better by principle/data, prefer it.
• If options are equivalent, prefer author choice.
• If change clearly improves code health and no blocking risk, move forward.

1. Unblock communication.

• Convert long async threads into quick synchronous discussion when needed.
• Keep tone respectful and focused on code, not person.
• Document the agreed result back in the review thread.

1. Escalate when needed.

• Trigger escalation when consensus cannot be reached in reasonable time.
• Escalate to designated decision owner (maintainer, tech lead, or manager).
• Record final decision, rationale, and follow-up actions.

1. Finalize and prevent recurrence.

• Land actionable decision for current CL.
• Capture reusable rule (team guideline, lint rule, or checklist item) if recurring.

Branching Logic

• Personal preference only: convert to Nit or Optional, avoid blocking.
• Required standard violation: keep as blocking until fixed.
• Time-critical release and unresolved minor points: consider LGTM with comments if code health still improves.
• Repeated conflict pattern: propose team-level policy update.

Completion Checklist

• Conflict type identified.
• Relevant standard/evidence cited.
• Clear next action and owner assigned.
• Escalation path used if needed.
• Final decision documented in the review thread.

Output Format

• Conflict Summary: what is disputed and why.
• Standards/Evidence: applicable rules and factual support.
• Resolution Options: at least two with trade-offs.
• Decision: selected path and owner.
• Record Note: short text to post back in the review thread.

Assets

• Use conflict record template to document decisions in the review thread.

References

• Local reviewer standard
• ./references/eng-practices-full/review/reviewer/standard.md
• ./references/eng-practices-full/review/reviewer/pushback.md
• ./references/eng-practices-full/review/developer/handling-comments.md

Weekly Installs

1

Repository

agoudbg/google-…w-skills

First Seen

1 day ago

Security Audits

Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass

Installed on

amp1

cline1

opencode1

cursor1

kimi-cli1

codex1