Receiving Code Review

---
name: receiving-code-review
description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - 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
```

## Forbidden Responses

**NEVER:**

- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit AGENTS.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:**

```
the user: "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 the user

- **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 the user's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with the user first
```

**Rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

## DorkOS-Specific Checks

When evaluating code review feedback against this codebase:

- **Check `.claude/rules/code-quality.md`** for naming conventions, complexity limits, and code smell guidelines before accepting or rejecting style-related feedback
- **Check `decisions/` (ADRs)** for prior architectural decisions that may explain why something was done a particular way. If a reviewer suggests changing an approach covered by an ADR, reference the ADR rather than blindly implementing
- **Check FSD layer rules** (`.claude/rules/fsd-layers.md`) when feedback involves moving or restructuring client code
- **Check `contributing/` guides** for established patterns in the relevant domain (animations, data-fetching, state-management, etc.)

```
IF reviewer suggests a pattern change:
  1. Search decisions/ for relevant ADRs
  2. Search contributing/ for documented conventions
  3. If an ADR or guide exists, reference it in your response
  4. If the suggestion contradicts an ADR, flag it to the user before implementing
```

## 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
```

**Rule:** "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 the user's architectural decisions
- Contradicts an existing ADR in `decisions/`

**How to push back:**

- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Reference relevant ADRs when applicable
- Involve the user if architectural

## 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]

NOT: "You're absolutely right!"
NOT: "Great point!"
NOT: "Thanks for catching that!"
NOT: "Thanks for [anything]"
NOT: 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."

NOT: Long apology
NOT: Defending why you pushed back
NOT: 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  |
| Ignoring ADRs                | Check decisions/ for prior reasoning |

## Real Examples

**Performative Agreement (Bad):**

```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
BAD: "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
```

**Technical Verification (Good):**

```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
GOOD: "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"
GOOD: "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
```

**Unclear Item (Good):**

```
the user: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
GOOD: "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
```

**ADR Reference (Good):**

```
Reviewer: "Use Redux for state management instead of Zustand"
GOOD: "ADR-0005 documents the decision to use Zustand for UI state and TanStack Query for server state. The rationale covers bundle size and API simplicity. Should we revisit this decision?"
```

## 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.