respond

name	respond
description	Evaluate and address concrete code-review feedback against repository reality.

Respond

User intent, priorities, and accepted tradeoffs are authoritative. Technical explanations and proposed fixes remain claims to verify against the code and evidence.

Process

1. Read all feedback and its surrounding diff context.
2. Separate requested outcomes from technical assertions about the cause or solution.
3. Verify each technical assertion against repository behavior, tests, and relevant documentation.
4. Apply correct in-scope fixes one at a time with focused verification.
5. Push back concisely when a suggestion is technically wrong, breaks existing behavior, conflicts with an accepted decision, or expands scope without value.
6. Report what changed, what was declined, and the evidence supporting either result.

Avoid performative agreement, but ordinary human acknowledgment is fine. If your earlier technical conclusion was wrong, correct it directly without defensive explanation.