# Receiving Code Review

> Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

- Skill: `wukongnotnull/receiving-code-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add wukongnotnull/receiving-code-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/wukongnotnull/receiving-code-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: wukongnotnull (https://skillmd.com/u/wukongnotnull)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/wukongnotnull/receiving-code-review

---


# 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.