receiving-code-review

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!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation) "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: your human partner: "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 your human partner's prior decisions: Stop and discuss with your human partner first your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully" YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly": grep codebase for actual usage IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?" IF used: Then implement properly your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it." 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 your human partner's architectural decisions 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 out loud: "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] ❌ "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." ❌ Long apology ❌ Defending why you pushed back ❌ 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): your 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." GitHub Thread Replies When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread ( gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies ), not as a top-level PR comment. The Bottom Line External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow. Verify. Question. Then implement. No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.