Receiving Code Review Skill
Review feedback is not a to-do list to blindly execute. Classify each item, act on what matters, and justify what you decline.
When to use this skill
- You receive review comments on a PR or diff you wrote
- Someone flags issues in code you produced
- User asks you to "address the feedback" or "fix the review comments"
Step 1 — Read all feedback before acting
Do not start editing on the first comment. Read everything first. Build a complete picture of what the reviewer is asking.
Step 2 — Classify each comment
| Category | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Must fix | Correctness bug, security issue, data loss risk | Fix immediately |
| Should fix | Real concern, reasonable improvement | Fix unless there's a strong reason not to |
| Optional | Style, preference, minor nitpick | Fix if fast (<5 min), otherwise note and move on |
| Reject | Disagrees with an intentional design choice | Respond with reasoning, do not change code |
Step 3 — Act
For each must-fix and should-fix:
- Make the change
- Confirm the fix with evidence (diff or test output)
- Reply to the reviewer with what you changed
For each optional:
- If fast: do it
- If not: "Noted, deferring — [why]"
For each reject:
- Write a clear explanation: "This is intentional because [X]. I'm keeping it as is."
- Do not change the code under social pressure alone
Step 4 — Do not over-accept
Signs you are over-accepting:
- Applying every comment without reading context
- Changing code you are confident was correct
- Letting the reviewer's style override your project's conventions
If a comment would break something or contradict a documented decision: push back.
Response format (for PR reply)
Thanks for the review. Here's what I did:
**Fixed:**
- [comment ref] [what I changed] — [file:line]
**Deferred:**
- [comment ref] [why — e.g. out of scope, separate ticket]
**Not changing:**
- [comment ref] [reason — e.g. this is intentional because X]
After applying changes
Run tests and use verify-before-done before marking the PR ready again.