Receiving Code Review

1---2name: receiving-code-review3description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation4---5 6# Code Review Reception7 8## Overview9 10Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.11 12**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.13 14## The Response Pattern15 16```17WHEN receiving code review feedback:18 191. READ: Complete feedback without reacting202. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)213. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality224. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?235. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback246. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each25```26 27## Forbidden Responses28 29**NEVER:**30- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)31- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)32- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)33 34**INSTEAD:**35- Restate the technical requirement36- Ask clarifying questions37- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong38- Just start working (actions > words)39 40## Handling Unclear Feedback41 42```43IF any item is unclear:44  STOP - do not implement anything yet45  ASK for clarification on unclear items46 47WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.48```49 50**Example:**51```52your human partner: "Fix 1-6"53You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.54 55❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later56✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."57```58 59## Source-Specific Handling60 61### From your human partner62- **Trusted** - implement after understanding63- **Still ask** if scope unclear64- **No performative agreement**65- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment66 67### From External Reviewers68```69BEFORE implementing:70  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?71  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?72  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?73  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?74  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?75 76IF suggestion seems wrong:77  Push back with technical reasoning78 79IF can't easily verify:80  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"81 82IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:83  Stop and discuss with your human partner first84```85 86**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"87 88## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features89 90```91IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":92  grep codebase for actual usage93 94  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"95  IF used: Then implement properly96```97 98**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."99 100## Implementation Order101 102```103FOR multi-item feedback:104  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST105  2. Then implement in this order:106     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)107     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)108     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)109  3. Test each fix individually110  4. Verify no regressions111```112 113## When To Push Back114 115Push back when:116- Suggestion breaks existing functionality117- Reviewer lacks full context118- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)119- Technically incorrect for this stack120- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist121- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions122 123**How to push back:**124- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness125- Ask specific questions126- Reference working tests/code127- Involve your human partner if architectural128 129**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"130 131## Acknowledging Correct Feedback132 133When feedback IS correct:134```135✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"136✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."137✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]138 139❌ "You're absolutely right!"140❌ "Great point!"141❌ "Thanks for catching that!"142❌ "Thanks for [anything]"143❌ ANY gratitude expression144```145 146**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.147 148**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.149 150## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback151 152If you pushed back and were wrong:153```154✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."155✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."156 157❌ Long apology158❌ Defending why you pushed back159❌ Over-explaining160```161 162State the correction factually and move on.163 164## Common Mistakes165 166| Mistake | Fix |167|---------|-----|168| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |169| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |170| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |171| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |172| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |173| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |174| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |175 176## Real Examples177 178**Performative Agreement (Bad):**179```180Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"181❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."182```183 184**Technical Verification (Good):**185```186Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"187✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"188```189 190**YAGNI (Good):**191```192Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"193✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"194```195 196**Unclear Item (Good):**197```198your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"199You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.200✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."201```202 203## GitHub Thread Replies204 205When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.206 207## The Bottom Line208 209**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**210 211Verify. Question. Then implement.212 213No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.