| name | receiving-code-review |
| classification | passive |
| description | How to process code review feedback effectively. Understand before acting, verify suggestions technically, ask for clarification when needed. Complements the reviewer sub-agents. |
Receiving Code Review
Guidance for processing review feedback — whether from human reviewers or sub-agent reviewers.
Principles
Understand before acting
- Read all feedback before making any changes
- Identify which comments are blocking vs advisory
- Group related comments that may have a common root cause
Verify suggestions technically
- Do not blindly implement reviewer suggestions — verify they are correct
- Run the suggested change through tests before accepting
- If a suggestion introduces a regression, flag it rather than accepting it
Ask for clarification
- If feedback is ambiguous, ask the reviewer to clarify rather than guessing
- If you disagree with a suggestion, explain why with evidence (test results, type errors, architectural constraints)
- Silence is not agreement — respond to every substantive comment
One concern at a time
- Address each piece of feedback in a separate commit where practical
- This makes review of the fixes easier and keeps the history clean
Anti-patterns
- Performative agreement: accepting all suggestions without evaluation
- Defensive dismissal: rejecting feedback without technical justification
- Scope creep: using review feedback as an excuse to refactor unrelated code
References
.agent/sub-agents/templates/ — reviewer prompt templates.agent/directives/invoke-code-reviewers.md — when and how reviewers are invoked
