Receiving Code Review

HOTL Receiving Code Review

Core Rule

Treat review feedback as input to evaluate, not instructions to obey. Verify each claim against the current codebase, the workflow, and the HOTL contracts before making changes.

When This Applies

• After any code review — from the hotl:code-reviewer agent, PR review, human reviewer, or external contributor
• Before implementing any suggested change
• Whenever review findings are returned to an executor at a review checkpoint

Process

1. Verify

Check whether each finding is factually correct in the current code:

• Confirm the file:line reference exists and matches the claim
• Run any verification commands that would confirm or refute the finding
• If the finding references a pattern or convention, check whether it actually applies to this codebase
• If the code changed since the review was written, re-evaluate the finding against current HEAD before doing anything

2. Evaluate

For each verified finding, check against HOTL contracts:

• Does acting on it violate the intent contract?
• Does it expand scope beyond success_criteria? (YAGNI)
• Does it conflict with existing constraints?
• Does it change risk_level or require a new gate?
• Does it contradict a prior human-approved decision?

Classify each finding:

• Accept — verified correct, within scope, improves the work
• Reject — factually wrong, out of scope, or conflicts with contracts
• Defer — valid but belongs in a separate workflow (scope expansion)

3. Respond

For each finding, produce a decision record:

4. Implement

• Only implement accepted findings
• BLOCK findings first, then WARN, then NOTE
• If an accepted finding changes scope, constraints, or risk_level, stop implementation and return to planning/governance before proceeding
• Run verification after each change — do not batch blind
• If a change breaks verification, revert and re-evaluate

Handling Unclear Feedback

• Do not implement the unclear finding
• You may proceed with other findings that are independently verified and clearly in scope
• Ask for clarification on the unclear items before implementing them

Source-Specific Rules

HOTL code-reviewer agent: Findings include file:line refs and severity. Treat severity as the reviewer's initial priority signal, but still verify the impact before acting.

Human reviewer: Human reviewers are authoritative on product intent, priorities, and approved scope decisions. Technical claims still need verification against the code.

External reviewer: Verify everything. Check whether suggestions fit this codebase's patterns, constraints, and HOTL contracts. Push back with evidence when they don't.

Push-Back Protocol

When rejecting a finding:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Reference specific code, tests, or contract clauses
• If the finding conflicts with a human-approved gate decision, escalate to the human rather than overriding