name: code-review-receive description: Technical evaluation of code review feedback. Use when receiving review feedback - requires verification before implementing, no performative agreement, push back when technically wrong.
Code Review Reception
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!"
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!"
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
- Any performative agreement
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:
Feedback: "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."
YAGNI Check
When reviewer suggests adding features:
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
Search codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
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 prior architectural decisions
How to push back:
- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Escalate if architectural
Implementation Order
For multi-item feedback:
- Clarify anything unclear FIRST
- Then implement in order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
- Test each fix individually
- Verify no regressions
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]
DON'T: "You're absolutely right!"
DON'T: "Thanks for catching that!"
DON'T: ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it.
Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
If you pushed back and were wrong:
DO: "Verified and you're correct. My understanding was wrong. Fixing."
DON'T: Long apology or defending why you pushed back
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 |
Integration
Use with:
task-dispatch- Handle review between taskscode-test- Test each fix individuallycompletion-verify- Verify fixes actually work