Receiving Code Review

Receiving Code Review

Core Principle

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

Contract

Inputs:

• Incoming review feedback (PR comments, verbal review notes) and the codebase the feedback refers to.

Outputs:

• A per-point technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback, plus an action plan for the changes that survive evaluation.

Creates/Modifies:

• None directly. This skill produces responses; code edits happen through other skills.

External Side Effects:

• Read-only git / gh invocations to verify claims against the codebase.

Confirmation Required:

• None. All output is advisory.

Delegates To:

• github-address-comments for posting the responses back to a PR.
• code-review for a fresh review pass once changes land.

Response Pattern

WHEN receiving code review feedback:

1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate the requirement in your own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Is this technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each

Forbidden Responses

NEVER say:

• "You're absolutely right!"
• "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!"
• "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
• Any expression of gratitude ("Thanks for catching that!", "Thanks for [anything]")

INSTEAD:

• Restate the technical requirement
• Ask clarifying questions
• Push back with technical reasoning if the suggestion is wrong
• Just start working — actions speak louder than words

Handling Unclear Feedback

IF any item is unclear:
  STOP — do not implement anything yet
  ASK for clarification on all unclear items before proceeding

WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding leads to 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."

Evaluating Feedback by Source

From the codebase owner / requester

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

From external reviewers

BEFORE implementing:
  1. Check: Is this technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Would this break existing functionality?
  3. Check: Is there a reason the current implementation exists?
  4. Check: Does this work on all required platforms/versions?
  5. Check: Does the reviewer understand the full context?

IF the suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

IF you cannot easily verify:
  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate / ask / proceed]?"

IF the suggestion conflicts with prior architectural decisions:
  Stop and surface the conflict before implementing

YAGNI Check for "Implement Properly" Suggestions

IF a reviewer suggests adding or expanding a feature "properly":
  grep the codebase for actual usage

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

Reviewers often suggest improvements to code that isn't wired up anywhere. Verify usage before expanding scope.

Implementation Order

FOR multi-item feedback:
  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
  2. Then implement in this order:
     - Blocking issues (broken behaviour, security)
     - Simple fixes (typos, imports, naming)
     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic changes)
  3. Test each fix individually
  4. Verify no regressions before moving to the next item

When to Push Back

Push back when the suggestion:

• Breaks existing functionality
• Assumes context the reviewer doesn't have
• Violates YAGNI (adds unused code)
• Is technically incorrect for this stack
• Conflicts with legacy or compatibility requirements
• Contradicts established architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions that surface the gap
• Reference existing tests or working code
• Escalate to the codebase owner if the disagreement is 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 let the diff speak]

❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ Any gratitude expression

The fix is the acknowledgment. State what changed and move on.

Gracefully Correcting Your Own 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 the legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

Technical verification (good):

Reviewer: "Remove the legacy code"
✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API requires 13+.
   Removing it drops pre-13 support. Is that intentional,
   or should I gate it behind a version check instead?"

YAGNI check (good):

Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped the codebase — nothing calls this endpoint.
   Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"

Unclear item (good):

Reviewer: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1, 2, 3, 6. Unclear on 4, 5.
✅ "Understand 1, 2, 3, 6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."

GitHub PR Comment Replies

When responding to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread — not as a top-level PR comment:

gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies \
  -f body="[your response]"

Reviewer feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow. Verify. Question. Then implement. No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.