Receiving Code Review

Receiving Code Review

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!"
• "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:

Reviewer: "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 User/Human Partner

• Trusted - implement after understanding
• Still ask if scope unclear
• No performative agreement
• Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From External Reviewers / Subagents

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 user's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with user first

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

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 user's architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions
• Reference working tests/code
• Involve user 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.

SuperSpec Integration

Spec Reviewer Feedback

When Spec Reviewer finds issues:

1. READ the specific issues found
2. VERIFY against Spec file
3. IF valid: Fix and provide evidence
4. IF questionable: Ask for clarification
5. NEVER just say "fixing now" without verification

Code Quality Reviewer Feedback

When Code Quality Reviewer finds issues:

1. READ issue classification (Critical/Important/Suggestion)
2. Critical + Important: Must fix
3. Suggestions: Optional
4. IF disagree with classification: Push back with reasoning
5. Fix one at a time, test each

TDD Violation Feedback

If reviewer says TDD wasn't followed:

1. CHECK: Do you have failing test evidence?
2. IF NO: You must restart with proper TDD
3. IF YES: Show the evidence
4. Don't argue - evidence speaks

Common Mistakes

Red Flags

Never:

• Agree without understanding
• Implement without verifying
• Skip testing after each fix
• Ignore technical concerns to be agreeable
• Proceed with unclear items

Always:

• Restate to confirm understanding
• Verify against actual code
• Test each change
• Push back if technically wrong
• Ask for clarification when needed

Integration

Called by:

• superspec:execute - After Spec/Quality review
• Any code review interaction

Pairs with:

• verification-before-completion - Verify fixes work
• tdd - Test each fix

The Bottom Line

External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.