---

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

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:

CopyFeedback: "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:

CopyIF 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:

1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in order:
   • Blocking issues (breaks, security)
   • Simple fixes (typos, imports)
   • Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions

---

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

CopyDO:    "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:

CopyDO:    "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

---

Integration

Use with:

• task-dispatch - Handle review between tasks
• code-test - Test each fix individually
• completion-verify - Verify fixes actually work