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

Respond With the Evaluation, Not With Agreement

Openers like "You're absolutely right!" or "Let me implement that now" commit you to the feedback before step 3 (VERIFY) has run, and they tell the reviewer nothing about whether the feedback was correct. Respond with one of:

• 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

the user's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

From AI Reviewers (/code-review, quality-reviewer, spec-reviewer, test-reviewer agents)

Treat as external reviewers: verify every finding against the codebase before acting.

FOR each finding:
  1. Read the actual code at the cited location — does the issue exist as described?
  2. Check the relevant .claude/rules/ file — is the cited convention real and current?
  3. If the finding conflicts with a project rule or hook, the rule wins — reject the finding
  4. If valid: fix. If invalid: record WHY it was rejected (one line), don't silently drop it

AI reviewers hallucinate plausible-sounding findings and cite stale conventions. A finding that can't be verified at a specific file:line is not actionable — say so instead of guessing a fix.

Common false positives from AI reviewers (reject unless the report cites codebase-specific evidence)

These are the patterns LLM reviewers mis-flag most. The reviewer is asked to report them anyway (uncertain findings included — triage is the filter); this list is what triage rejects by default:

Surviving a row requires the trigger (input/state → wrong outcome) and why the existing guard misses it. The pipeline's code-reviewer is contracted to supply both; when the finding comes from a reviewer that has no such field (the built-in /code-review, a human), triage reads the code and supplies the trigger itself before deciding — every finding is still verified, the catalog only decides who does the work of proving it.

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

the user'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 the user's architectural decisions

How to push back:

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

If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud: Name that tension, then tell the user about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.

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]

The fix is the acknowledgment. Gratitude or praise in front of it is noise the reviewer has to read past to find what changed.

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.

Common Mistakes

Real Examples

Performative Agreement (Bad):

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

Technical Verification (Good):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "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"
✅ "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.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."

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.