Receiving Code Review

---
name: receiving-code-review
description: Process and act on code review feedback. Use when receiving review results.
version: 1.1.0
category: 'Development Workflow'
agents: [developer, code-reviewer]
tags: [code-review, feedback, fixes, resolution, sign-off]
model: sonnet
invoked_by: both
user_invocable: true
tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash]
best_practices:
  - Fix Critical issues immediately
  - Fix Important issues before proceeding
  - Note Minor issues for later
  - Push back with reasoning if reviewer is wrong
error_handling: graceful
streaming: supported
verified: true
lastVerifiedAt: 2026-02-22T00:00:00.000Z
source: builtin
trust_score: 100
provenance_sha: 4dc598146d71ebf4
---

# Code Review Reception

## 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!" (performative)
- "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:**

```
Human: "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 Your Human Partner

- **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 human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with human partner first
```

**Rule:** "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
```

**Rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this 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 human partner's architectural decisions

**How to push back:**

- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Involve human partner if architectural

**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

## Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

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

NOT:
"You're absolutely right!"
"Great point!"
"Thanks for catching that!"
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:

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

NOT:
Long apology
Defending why you pushed back
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"
"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
```

**Technical Verification (Good):**

```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
"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"
"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
```

**Unclear Item (Good):**

```
Human: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
```

## 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.

## Iron Laws

1. **NEVER** implement feedback before verifying it is technically correct for this specific codebase — reviewer suggestions are proposals, not orders.
2. **ALWAYS** clarify every unclear item before implementing any — partial understanding of a multi-item review produces wrong implementations that compound each other.
3. **NEVER** write performative agreement ("great point!", "you're absolutely right!") — technical acknowledgment or corrected code is the only valid response.
4. **ALWAYS** implement fixes one item at a time with individual test verification — batch implementations without testing create cascading bugs.
5. **NEVER** implement a suggested feature that grep confirms is unused — YAGNI applies; unused code is technical debt disguised as improvement.

## Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern                                     | Why It Fails                                                                | Correct Approach                                                                         |
| ------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Implementing all feedback without verification   | Reviewer may lack full context; suggestion may break existing functionality | Verify each item against codebase before implementing                                    |
| Starting implementation with unclear items       | Missing context on item 4 corrupts items 1-3 that depend on it              | Clarify all unclear items first; implement nothing until all items are understood        |
| Expressing gratitude for feedback                | Performative responses waste tokens and add no technical value              | Respond with the technical fact (what was wrong, what was fixed) or just the code change |
| Batch-implementing without testing               | One wrong fix corrupts the entire batch; regressions become invisible       | Implement and test each item individually; commit checkpoints after each                 |
| Adding suggested features without checking usage | Implements dead code that must be maintained forever                        | Grep for actual usage first; if unused, confirm removal is the right answer              |

## Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

**Before starting:**
Read `.claude/context/memory/learnings.md`

**After completing:**

- New pattern -> `.claude/context/memory/learnings.md`
- Issue found -> `.claude/context/memory/issues.md`
- Decision made -> `.claude/context/memory/decisions.md`

> ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.