# Receiving Code Review

> 當收到程式碼審查回饋、在實作建議之前使用，尤其是當回饋看起來不清楚或技術上有疑慮時 —— 需要技術嚴謹與驗證，而不是做作地附和或盲目實作

- Skill: `shumingyang-opencode/receiving-code-review` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add shumingyang-opencode/receiving-code-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/shumingyang-opencode/receiving-code-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: shumingyang-opencode (https://skillmd.com/u/shumingyang-opencode)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/shumingyang-opencode/receiving-code-review

---


# 接收程式碼審查

## 總覽

程式碼審查需要技術評估，而不是情緒表演。

**核心原則：** 先驗證再實作。先詢問再臆測。技術正確性優先於社交舒適感。

## 回應模式

```
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
```

## 禁止的回應

**絕不：**
- 「你完全正確！」（明確違反指令檔）
- 「好觀點！」/「優秀的回饋！」（做作）
- 「我現在就來實作」（在驗證之前）

**取而代之：**
- 複述技術需求
- 提出釐清問題
- 如果錯誤，用技術論證提出異議
- 直接動手做（行動勝於言語）

## 處理不清楚的回饋

```
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.
```

**範例：**
```
your human partner: "Fix 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."
```

## 依來源分別處理

### 來自你的人工夥伴
- **值得信賴** - 理解後再實作
- **範圍不清楚時仍要詢問**
- **不做作地附和**
- **直接動手**或技術性確認

### 來自外部審查者
```
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 your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
```

**你的人工夥伴的規則：** 「外部回饋 - 保持懷疑，但要仔細檢查」

## 對「正式」功能的 YAGNI 檢查

```
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
```

**你的人工夥伴的規則：** 「你與審查者都向我匯報。如果我們不需要這個功能，就不要加。」

## 實作順序

```
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
```

## 何時提出異議

在以下情況提出異議：
- 建議會破壞現有功能
- 審查者缺乏完整上下文
- 違反 YAGNI（未使用的功能）
- 對這個技術棧來說技術上不正確
- 存在舊版/相容性理由
- 與你的人工夥伴的架構決策衝突

**如何提出異議：**
- 用技術論證，而不是防衛心態
- 提出具體問題
- 引用能運作的測試/程式碼
- 如果是架構層級的問題，讓人工夥伴參與

**如果你對公開提出異議感到不自在：** 說出那個張力，然後把你看見的問題告訴你的夥伴。他們會感謝你的誠實。

## 肯定正確的回饋

當回饋確實正確時：
```
✅ "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!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
```

**為什麼不道謝：** 行動勝於言語。直接修好它。程式碼本身就會顯示你聽見了回饋。

**如果你發現自己正要打出「Thanks」：** 刪掉它。改為陳述修正。

## 優雅地修正你提出異議的錯誤

如果你提出異議但錯了：
```
✅ "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
```

如實陳述修正並繼續前進。

## 常見錯誤

| 錯誤 | 修正 |
|---------|-----|
| 做作地附和 | 陳述需求或直接行動 |
| 盲目實作 | 先對照程式碼現況驗證 |
| 一次大量修改未測試 | 一次一項，逐項測試 |
| 預設審查者一定對 | 檢查是否破壞其他東西 |
| 迴避提出異議 | 技術正確性 > 舒適感 |
| 部分實作 | 先釐清所有項目 |
| 無法驗證卻繼續進行 | 說明限制，請示方向 |

## 實際範例

**做作地附和（不良）：**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
```

**技術驗證（良好）：**
```
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（良好）：**
```
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?"
```

**不清楚的項目（良好）：**
```
your human partner: "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 討論串回覆

回覆 GitHub 上的行內審查意見時，請在該意見的討論串中回覆（`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`），而不是在 PR 頂層加一則留言。