Receiving Code Review

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.

In the workbench flow this governs the feedback loop after landing: it governs acting on the feedback that arrived, and verified fixes re-enter implementation.

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!" before checking the claim (unverified agreement)
• "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:
  ASK about the unclear items and check dependencies
  PAUSE only changes that depend on those answers
  IMPLEMENT verified independent fixes under the existing request

WHY: Establish dependencies rather than assuming every item is coupled.

Example:

The user: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

❌ WRONG: Guess what 4 and 5 mean, or block unrelated fixes without checking dependencies
✅ RIGHT: "I will fix independent items 1,2,3,6. Items 4 and 5 need this clarification: ..."

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

Rule of thumb: external feedback: be skeptical, but check carefully.

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  Search code, public API contracts, consumers, and compatibility obligations
  A local search alone cannot prove externally exposed behavior is unused

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

You and the reviewer both answer to the user. If the feature isn't needed, don't add it.

Implementation Order

FOR multi-item feedback:
  1. Ask about unclear items and identify which changes depend on their answers
  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 your honesty.

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 the boundary case; verified and fixed in [location]."

Ordinary gratitude is fine. Keep the technical finding, verification, and disposition clear; thanks does not replace those.

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

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):

The user: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Items 1,2,3,6 are independent and verified; implementing them. Items 4 and 5 need clarification before their changes."

GitHub Thread Replies

Only post replies under explicit existing user/workflow authorization; a request to inspect or fix feedback alone does not authorize an external comment. 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.