---

name: receiving-code-review description: | Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.

Receiving Code Review

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

CopyWHEN 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

CopyIF 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:

CopyReviewer: "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 before proceeding."

Source-Specific Handling

From User/Human Partner

• Trusted - implement after understanding
• Still ask if scope unclear
• No performative agreement
• Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From External Reviewers / Subagents

CopyBEFORE 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 user's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with user first

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

CopyIF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  grep codebase for actual usage

  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
  IF used: Then implement properly

Implementation Order

CopyFOR 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 user's architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions
• Reference working tests/code
• Involve user if architectural

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

Copy✅ "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!"
❌ ANY gratitude expression

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

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

Copy✅ "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.

SuperSpec Integration

Spec Reviewer Feedback

When Spec Reviewer finds issues:

Copy1. READ the specific issues found
2. VERIFY against Spec file
3. IF valid: Fix and provide evidence
4. IF questionable: Ask for clarification
5. NEVER just say "fixing now" without verification

Code Quality Reviewer Feedback

When Code Quality Reviewer finds issues:

Copy1. READ issue classification (Critical/Important/Suggestion)
2. Critical + Important: Must fix
3. Suggestions: Optional
4. IF disagree with classification: Push back with reasoning
5. Fix one at a time, test each

TDD Violation Feedback

If reviewer says TDD wasn't followed:

Copy1. CHECK: Do you have failing test evidence?
2. IF NO: You must restart with proper TDD
3. IF YES: Show the evidence
4. Don't argue - evidence speaks

Common Mistakes

Red Flags

Never:

• Agree without understanding
• Implement without verifying
• Skip testing after each fix
• Ignore technical concerns to be agreeable
• Proceed with unclear items

Always:

• Restate to confirm understanding
• Verify against actual code
• Test each change
• Push back if technically wrong
• Ask for clarification when needed

Integration

Called by:

• superspec:execute - After Spec/Quality review
• Any code review interaction

Pairs with:

• verification-before-completion - Verify fixes work
• tdd - Test each fix

The Bottom Line

External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.