Pc Receiving Code Review

Receiving Code Review

Treat review feedback as technical input to verify, not as a script to perform.

Context

pc-receiving-code-review is the author-side companion to reviewer-side pc-code-review.

See context and anti-pattern notes.

Inputs

I/O contract notes define required inputs and authority.

Process

Step 1: Read the Whole Review Before Acting

Do not start implementing the first comment immediately. Read the full review and group items into:

• blocking corrections
• clarifications needed
• technically questionable suggestions
• optional improvements

If multiple comments appear related, keep them together until the interaction is understood as a whole.

Step 2: Clarify Before Partial Implementation

If any review item is ambiguous, stop and ask before changing code. Do not implement the subset you understand while guessing at the rest.

Clarify when:

• the requested behavior is unclear
• the suggested scope is larger than the current slice
• the comment may conflict with an architecture or product boundary
• the reviewer appears to assume context that is not visible in the diff

Step 3: Verify Against Codebase Reality

For each review item, check:

• does the suggestion fit the current code and tests
• does it preserve brownfield compatibility and unsupported-flow rules
• does it violate YAGNI or introduce unused complexity
• does it conflict with reviewed architecture or contract decisions
• is the reviewer pointing at the real defect, or only at a local symptom

If the feedback is correct, implement it. If not, respond with technical reasoning and evidence instead of social agreement.

Step 4: Respond Factually, Not Performatively

Do not write praise or social filler such as:

• "You're absolutely right"
• "Great point"
• "Excellent feedback"

Instead:

• restate the technical issue
• say what changed
• say what remains unclear
• say why the suggestion should not be applied when evidence contradicts it

Step 5: Implement One Verified Item at a Time

Apply accepted feedback in a controlled order:

1. blocking correctness or security fixes
2. scope-safe cleanups
3. optional or stylistic improvements last

Run the relevant tests after each meaningful change. If one item reopens another, record that explicitly instead of silently batch-editing everything at once.

Step 6: Produce a Review Response Record

Produce a review-response-record that captures:

• each review item
• whether it was implemented, challenged, or clarified
• the evidence used to decide
• the tests or checks run after accepted changes
• any remaining disputed items that still need reviewer or user resolution

Outputs

Produce only declared outputs at their documented quality boundary.

Quality Gate

• Every review item is classified before implementation begins
• Ambiguous feedback is clarified before partial implementation
• Accepted suggestions are verified against current codebase reality
• Pushback, when needed, is technical and evidence-based
• Relevant tests are rerun after accepted changes
• The final response states what changed and what remains unresolved

Distribution

• Public install surface: skills/.curated
• Canonical authoring source: skills/05-quality/pc-receiving-code-review/SKILL.md
• This package is exported for npx skills add/update compatibility.
• Packaging stability: beta
• Capability readiness: beta
• Portability: portable_with_caveat
• Public caveat: Portable as skill guidance; full governance guarantees require the Prodcraft repository contracts and validation checks.