| name | ovid-receive-code-review |
| description | Use when receiving code review feedback from a reviewer or when the user pastes review comments to act on - wraps superpowers:receiving-code-review with commit-as-you-go discipline and scope rules |
Receiving Code Review (Ovid)
Overview
Wraps superpowers:receiving-code-review with four additional rules. Load and follow that skill first, then layer these on top.
Read @CLAUDE.md.
REQUIRED: Invoke superpowers:receiving-code-review before proceeding.
Additional Rules
1. Commit as You Go
After each review item (or small logical group) is fixed and tests pass, create a git commit immediately. Do not batch all fixes into one commit at the end.
FOR each review item (or small related group):
1. Implement the fix
2. Run relevant tests to confirm
3. git add + git commit with a message describing the fix
4. Move to next item
Why: Small commits make it easy to revert individual fixes, simplify re-review, and prevent losing work if something goes wrong mid-session.
2. Use Red/Green/Refactor (with contract analysis prerequisite)
All fixes must follow TDD discipline. Do not jump straight to changing production code.
FOR each fix:
0. CONTRACT ANALYSIS (prerequisite — see below)
1. RED: Write or update a test that exposes the problem (watch it fail)
2. GREEN: Write the minimal fix to make the test pass
3. REFACTOR: Clean up without changing behavior
Step 0 — Contract Analysis (mandatory before writing the test):
Before writing the failing test, enumerate every caller of the function/state/flag you are about to constrain, and confirm the contract you are pinning is correct for each caller. The test you write encodes your understanding of the contract; if your understanding is wrong, the test pins the bug as a feature.
BEFORE writing the test:
1. grep for callers of the function/method/state-flag you'll constrain
2. For each caller, name the meaning the caller relies on
3. If the same name carries DIFFERENT meanings in different callers,
STOP — the bug is semantic-overload, not the surface symptom
4. Only proceed to RED once every caller's contract is enumerated and consistent
If a review item is a pure refactor with no behavioral change, existing passing tests serve as the "red" — confirm they pass before and after.
Why: TDD by itself does not validate that a test asserts correct behavior — only that the test passes. A fix to Editor.flushSave (review-cycle 2026-04-26) added an isEditable === false guard with a green test pinning the new behavior — but isEditable === false carried two meanings in the codebase (persistent failure lock vs in-flight mutation lock), and the guard collided with the second. A 30-second grep "setEditable(false)" would have surfaced the collision before the test was written. Contract analysis is the missing prerequisite that prevents TDD from encoding misunderstandings into green tests.
3. Pre-existing and Out-of-scope Issues Must Be Fixed (with semantic-blast-radius escape hatch)
If a review item points out a valid problem that happens to be pre-existing behavior or technically "out of scope" for the current branch, fix it anyway — unless the fix changes the semantics of shared state used across multiple flows.
IF reviewer flags a valid problem:
Fix it. Period.
"It was already like that" is not a reason to skip.
"That's out of scope" is not a reason to skip.
Reasons to skip:
1. The feedback is technically wrong, OR
2. The fix would change the semantics of a shared flag/state/contract
used by multiple callers (see contract analysis in rule 2).
In that case: file as a separate ticket / next-PR work, do not
expand this PR. Note the deferral and rationale in the PR
description and in paad/code-reviews/backlog.md.
Why: Valid bugs don't stop being bugs because they predate the current branch. But OOS items that require changing semantics of shared state are exactly the class of fix that contract-analysis (rule 2) protects against — and squeezing them into the current PR multiplies blast radius. The OOS tier itself is the signal: the reviewer judged it could wait. Honor that signal when the fix would touch semantics across multiple flows; defer to a focused PR where the contract change can be reviewed properly.
3a. Check for Wider Occurrences
After validating a review item, check whether the same issue exists elsewhere in the codebase. A review comment about one file often reveals a pattern problem.
AFTER validating a review item (before implementing the fix):
1. SEARCH: Grep/search the codebase for the same pattern the reviewer flagged
2. ASSESS: Is this a one-off, or does it appear in other files/modules?
3. IF wider concern AND practical to fix:
- Fix all occurrences, not just the one the reviewer pointed at
- Group the wider fix into the same commit (it's the same logical change)
4. IF wider concern BUT impractical (e.g., massive refactor, risky scope):
- Fix the flagged instance
- Report the wider occurrences to the user so they can decide
Why: Fixing one instance while leaving ten identical problems elsewhere defeats the purpose of code review. If the reviewer caught a real issue, the same issue in other files is just as real.
4. Not Done Until make all Passes
The review response is not complete until make all runs successfully. This is the final gate.
AFTER all review items are addressed:
1. Run: make all
2. IF it fails: fix the failures, commit the fix
3. Repeat until make all passes
4. ONLY THEN report completion
Do not claim the review is addressed if make all has not passed. Do not skip this step.
Process Summary
1. Invoke superpowers:receiving-code-review (follow it fully)
2. Work through review items per that skill's process
3. For each item:
a. Validate the finding
b. CONTRACT ANALYSIS: enumerate callers of the function/state you'd touch.
If the same name carries different meanings across callers, STOP —
the bug is semantic-overload; trace the data flow before proceeding.
c. WIDER OCCURRENCES: grep for the same pattern elsewhere in the codebase.
Fix all instances if practical; otherwise fix the flagged one and
report the rest to the user.
d. SCOPE CHECK: if the item is OOS AND the fix would change the semantics
of shared state used in multiple flows, defer to a separate ticket.
Note the deferral in the PR description.
e. RED / GREEN / REFACTOR with the contract you confirmed in (b).
f. Commit immediately.
4. After all items done: run make all
5. Fix any failures, commit fixes
6. Only report done when make all passes
