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

code

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

code

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:

code

Reviewer: "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

code

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

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

code

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

Implementation Order

code

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 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:

code

✅ "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:

code

✅ "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:

code

1. 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:

code

1. 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:

code

1. 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

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

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.