receiving-code-review

---
name: receiving-code-review
description: Responding to feedback
---

# 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 CLAUDE.md 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
**Assume:** They have business context you lack.
**Verify:** The technical implication of their request.
**Action:** If request breaks architecture -> Push back gently with reasoning + alternative.

### From External Reviewers
**Assume:** They may lack context or be misinformed.
**Verify:** Everything.
**Action:** Defend the code if it's correct. Accept if they found a real bug.

More agent context in myths-labs/muse

56 other files this repository gives its agents.