handling-code-review

name	handling-code-review
description	Use when code review feedback requires fixes - emphasizes technical verification over performative agreement

handling-code-review - Process Code Review Feedback

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

Escalation for Unclear Feedback

If there are open questions in the UNDERSTAND step, ask @office:team-lead who has more context on the project to explain it for you.

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":

1. Grep codebase for actual usage
2. IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
3. 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

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions
• Reference working tests/code
• Involve your human partner if architectural
• Signal if uncomfortable pushing back: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

• "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
• "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
• [Just fix it and show in the code]

Never use:

• "You're absolutely right!"
• "Great point!"
• "Thanks for catching that!"
• "Thanks for [anything]"
• ANY gratitude expression

Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

• "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
• "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."

No long apology. No defending why you pushed back. No over-explaining. State the correction factually and move on.

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 breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first
Can't verify, proceed anyway	State limitation, ask for direction

Real Examples

Performative Agreement (Bad):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"

"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

Technical Verification (Good):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"

"Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"

YAGNI (Good):

Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"

"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"

Unclear Item (Good):

Human partner: "Fix items 1-6"

You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."