Code Review

Code Review

Complete workflow for requesting code reviews and handling feedback professionally.

Core principle: Technical rigor over social comfort. Verify before implementing.

Part 1: Requesting Reviews

Dispatch review:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

When to Request

Mandatory:

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• After completing major feature
• Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

• When stuck (fresh perspective)
• Before refactoring (baseline check)
• After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with review:code-reviewer type. See dispatch template at plugins/methodology/review/templates/code-reviewer-dispatch.md.

Placeholders:

• {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
• {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
• {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
• {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

Example dispatch:

Task tool (review:code-reviewer):
  description: "Review Task 2 implementation"
  prompt: |
    Review the implementation against requirements.

    ## Context
    - **What Was Implemented:** Verification and repair functions for index
    - **Requirements/Plan:** Task 2 from docs/plans/deployment-plan.md
    - **Description:** Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

    ## Git Range
    - **Base:** a7981ec
    - **Head:** 3df7661

    First run: git diff --stat a7981ec..3df7661
    Then review against plugins/methodology/review/references/code-review-standards.md

3. Act on feedback:

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Note Minor issues for later
• Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Part 2: Receiving Feedback

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

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!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
• "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.

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 human partner if architectural

Source-Specific Handling

From 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 conflicts with human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with human partner first

YAGNI Check

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

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!"
❌ 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.

When You Can't Easily Verify

If you can't verify the feedback:

"I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"

Don't assume the reviewer is right or wrong - state the limitation and ask for direction.

Signal if Uncomfortable Pushing Back

If you feel uncomfortable pushing back on technically incorrect feedback but know it's wrong:

Signal phrase: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

This signals to your human partner that you have technical concerns but are struggling to articulate pushback. They can then dig deeper.

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

Common Mistakes

Integration

Tool usage:

• Uses Task tool with review:code-reviewer subagent type

Called by:

• workflow:subagent-dev - Review after each task
• workflow:executing-plans - Review after each batch

Pairs with:

• core:verification - Verify claims before requesting final review