Code Review Reception

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!"
"Let me implement that now" (before verification)
Any performative agreement

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:

Feedback: "Fix items 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."

YAGNI Check

When reviewer suggests adding features:

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  Search codebase for actual usage

  IF unused: "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
  IF used: Then implement properly

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 prior architectural decisions

How to push back:

Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
Ask specific questions
Reference working tests/code
Escalate if architectural

Implementation Order

For multi-item feedback:

Clarify anything unclear FIRST
Then implement in order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
Test each fix individually
Verify no regressions

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

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

DON'T: "You're absolutely right!"
DON'T: "Thanks for catching that!"
DON'T: ANY gratitude expression

Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

DO:    "Verified and you're correct. My understanding was wrong. Fixing."
DON'T: Long apology or defending why you pushed back

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 |

Integration

Use with:

task-dispatch - Handle review between tasks
code-test - Test each fix individually
completion-verify - Verify fixes actually work