| name | receiving-code-review |
| description | Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification — not performative agreement or blind implementation. |
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
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:
Reviewer: "Fix items 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 Trusted Collaborators
- Implement after understanding
- Still ask if scope is unclear
- 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 cannot easily verify:
Say so: "I cannot verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
YAGNI Check
IF reviewer suggests adding features:
Search codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This is not called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
Implementation Order
FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions
When To Push Back
Push back when:
- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
- Reviewer lacks full context
- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
- Technically incorrect for this stack
- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
- Conflicts with established architectural decisions
How to push back:
- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
Acknowledging Correct Feedback
When feedback IS correct:
DO: "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
DO: "Good catch — [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
DO: [Just fix it and show in the code]
AVOID: Performative gratitude — actions speak louder than words
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if it breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness matters |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Cannot verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
The Bottom Line
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
Technical rigor always.
Generated by autoharness | Template: community/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
