---
name: receiving-code-review
description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions — requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
---

# 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:**

```
Partner: "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 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 prior decisions: Stop and discuss with your human partner first
```

## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

```
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  grep codebase for actual usage

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

## 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 architectural decisions

**How to push back:**

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

## 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]

❌ "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.

## 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."

❌ 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 |
