| name | receiving-code-review |
| description | Process and act on code review feedback. Use when receiving review results. |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| category | Development Workflow |
| agents | ["developer","code-reviewer"] |
| tags | ["code-review","feedback","fixes","resolution","sign-off"] |
| model | sonnet |
| invoked_by | both |
| user_invocable | true |
| tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Bash"] |
| best_practices | ["Fix Critical issues immediately","Fix Important issues before proceeding","Note Minor issues for later","Push back with reasoning if reviewer is wrong"] |
| error_handling | graceful |
| streaming | supported |
| verified | true |
| lastVerifiedAt | "2026-02-22T00:00:00.000Z" |
| source | builtin |
| trust_score | 100 |
| provenance_sha | 4dc598146d71ebf4 |
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!" (performative)
- "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:
Human: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
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
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with human partner first
Rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
