Receiving Code Review

---
name: receiving-code-review
description: 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 implementation.
---

# Receiving Code Review

## Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

## The Response Pattern

```
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
```

## Forbidden Responses

**NEVER:**
- "You're absolutely right!"
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

**INSTEAD:**
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just start working (actions > words)

## Handling Unclear Feedback

```
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.
```

**Example:**
```
Reviewer: "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."
```

## Source-Specific Handling

### From the User
- **Trusted** — implement after understanding
- **Still ask** if scope unclear
- **No performative agreement**
- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment

### From External Reviewers
```
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 the user's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with the user first
```

External feedback: be skeptical, but check carefully.

## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

```
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
```

You and the reviewer both serve the user's goals. If the project doesn't need the feature, don't add it.

## Implementation Order

```
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
```

## When To Push Back

Push back when:
- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
- Reviewer lacks full context
- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
- Technically incorrect for this stack
- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
- Conflicts with the user's architectural decisions

**How to push back:**
- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Involve the user if architectural

**If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell the user about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate the honesty.

## Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:
```
GOOD: "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
GOOD: "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
GOOD: [Just fix it and show in the code]

BAD:  "You're absolutely right!"
BAD:  "Great point!"
BAD:  "Thanks for catching that!"
BAD:  ANY gratitude expression
```

**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** delete it. State the fix instead.

## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:
```
GOOD: "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
GOOD: "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."

BAD:  Long apology
BAD:  Defending why you pushed back
BAD:  Over-explaining
```

State the correction factually and move on.

## Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |

## Real Examples

**Performative agreement (bad):**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
BAD: "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
```

**Technical verification (good):**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
GOOD: "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?"
```

**YAGNI (good):**
```
Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
GOOD: "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)?
Or is there usage I'm missing?"
```

## GitHub Thread Replies

When 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.

## The Bottom Line

**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.