wukongnotnull Code Review Reception
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!" (explicit instruction-file 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.
Example: understand items 1,2,3,6 but not 4,5 → clarify 4 and 5 before implementing any of them. Do not implement the clear ones first.
Source-Specific Handling
From your human partner
- Trusted - implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope unclear
- No performative agreement
- Skip to action or technical acknowledgment
From External Reviewers
Be skeptical: verify technical fit for THIS codebase, regressions, why current code exists, platform coverage, and whether the reviewer has full context. Push back with technical reasoning when wrong; if you can't verify, say what you need; if it conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions, stop and discuss with them first.
your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
Full checklist:
skills/receiving-code-review/references/external-review-and-yagni.md
YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
If a reviewer says "implement properly," grep for actual usage. Unused → propose remove (YAGNI). Used → implement properly.
your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
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 your human partner's architectural decisions
How: technical reasoning, not defensiveness; ask specific questions; reference working tests/code; involve your human partner if architectural.
If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud: Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.
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!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it.
If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
If you pushed back and were wrong: state the correction factually ("You were right — I checked X…") and implement. No long apology, no defending the original pushback.
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
Real Examples
Worked dialogues (performative vs verify, YAGNI, unclear items):
skills/receiving-code-review/references/examples.md
GitHub Thread Replies
When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies), not as a top-level PR comment.
The Bottom Line
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.