Receiving Code Review

Treat feedback as technical input to validate, not as instructions to apply blindly.

Sequence

1. Read all feedback.
2. Clarify unclear items before implementing anything.
3. Validate each suggestion against codebase behavior and requirements.
4. Implement fixes in priority order.
5. Re-test and summarize outcomes.

Priority

1. Correctness/security regressions
2. Requirement mismatches
3. Maintainability issues
4. Minor polish

Treat Critical and High security findings as blocking until addressed or explicitly deferred by the user with documented rationale.

Forbidden Responses

Never say any of the following. They signal performative agreement, not technical engagement:

• "You're absolutely right!"
• "Great point!"
• "Good catch!"
• "Thanks for catching that!"
• Any gratitude expression before analysis
• Any agreement before verification

Instead: state what you verified, what you changed, and why. If the reviewer is right, the code change speaks for itself.

Pushback Rules

Push back when a suggestion:

• Breaks existing behavior
• Conflicts with approved architecture
• Adds unused scope (YAGNI)
• Lacks enough context to verify

Pushback must include concrete technical evidence — not opinions, not "I think", not "it should be fine."

Response Style

• Be factual and concise.
• State what changed, where, and why.
• If you disagree, explain with code or test output — not with rhetoric.

Completion

Report:

• Addressed items
• Deferred items with reason
• Verification commands/results
• Remaining risks