Receiving Code Review

Receiving Code Review

Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance or blind implementation.

Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

Announce at start: "I'm using receiving-code-review to evaluate this feedback."

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)

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."

Handling External Reviewers (CodeRabbit, AI, etc.)

BEFORE implementing:
  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Does it break existing functionality?
  3. Check: Is there a reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?

IF suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

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

YAGNI Check

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly" or adding features:
  grep codebase for actual usage

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

Common YAGNI violations from reviewers:

• "Add error handling for edge case X" → Does X happen in practice?
• "Make this configurable" → Is configuration actually needed?
• "Add logging here" → Is anyone going to read these logs?
• "This should be more generic" → Are there other use cases today?

The test: Would removing this code break anything that works today? If no → YAGNI.

Technical Verification Before Implementation

BEFORE implementing ANY suggestion:

1. REPRODUCE: Can you see the problem the reviewer claims?
   - If claim is "this will break when X", test X
   - If claim is "performance issue", measure it

2. CONTEXT: Does reviewer have full context?
   - Check if they see the test file
   - Check if they see related code
   - Check git history for WHY current approach exists

3. ALTERNATIVES: Is their suggestion the best fix?
   - Their fix may be correct but suboptimal
   - You know this codebase better than external reviewers

4. INTEGRATION: Does fix work with existing code?
   - Run tests before and after
   - Check related functionality

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
• Conflicts with documented architectural decisions

How to push back:

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

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!"

Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

Common Mistakes

The Bottom Line

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

Verify. Question. Then implement.

Integration with Other Skills

Related skills:

• verification — Verify fixes after implementing feedback
• systematic-debugging — If feedback reveals bug, debug properly
• pressure-test-scenarios — Scenarios 7, 8, 9 test review discipline