/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 instruction-file 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:**

your human partner: "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 your human partner

• **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:
  Use your structured question tool to ask for direction:
  Question: "I can't verify this suggestion without [X]. How should I proceed?"
  Options: "Investigate" (dig deeper to verify), "Ask reviewer" (request clarification from reviewer), "Proceed anyway" (implement without full verification)

IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first

**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

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

**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. 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 your human partner's architectural decisions

**How to push back:**

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

**If uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue.

**Never** push back on, YAGNI-delete, or select "Proceed anyway" past a **security or material-risk** finding. Security/risk feedback is acted on or escalated — never dismissed. (Production-Grade Doctrine)

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]

❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ 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."

❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining

State the correction factually and move on.

**Capture what you learned.** At close, record durable, evidence-backed insights (still true next month, tied to a file, test, or command). Never record guesses, one-offs, or secrets (tokens, keys, PII — every memory is injected into all future sessions). Update in place (`bd remember --key <key>`) rather than adding a near-duplicate.

bd remember "<kind>: <durable, evidence-backed insight>"   # kind: lesson / pattern / design / root-cause / research

If a previous memory is now wrong, `bd forget <id>` first.

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 it