git:20260501.402017b to git:20260501.de63568

40 added, 192 removed. Audit A to A.

---

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 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

- - **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 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

- **Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

- ## 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

+ <skill>

- 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."

+ <purpose>

+ Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

+ </purpose>

- ❌ Long apology

- ❌ Defending why you pushed back

- ❌ Over-explaining

- ```

+ <triggers>

+ <rule>Use when receiving any code review feedback.</rule>

+ <rule>Use especially when feedback seems unclear or technically questionable.</rule>

+ </triggers>

- State the correction factually and move on.

+ <process>

+ <step>**READ** — Complete feedback without reacting.</step>

+ <step>**UNDERSTAND** — Restate requirement in own words (or ask).</step>

+ <step>**VERIFY** — Check against codebase reality. Is it technically sound for THIS codebase?</step>

+ <step>**EVALUATE** — If unclear: STOP, ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before implementing anything (items may be related).</step>

+ <step>**RESPOND** — Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback. Never performative agreement.</step>

+ <step>**IMPLEMENT** — One item at a time, test each. Order: blocking issues → simple fixes → complex fixes.</step>

+ </process>

- ## Common Mistakes

+ <warning level="hard">

+ NEVER respond with "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for catching that!", or ANY gratitude expression. Just fix it and show in the code. Actions speak.

+ </warning>

- | 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 |

+ <rules>

+ <rule>**From human partner:** Implement after understanding. No performative agreement. Skip to action.</rule>

+ <rule>**From external reviewers:** Verify technically correct for THIS codebase before implementing. Check: breaks existing functionality? Reason for current implementation? Works on all platforms?</rule>

+ <rule>**YAGNI check:** If reviewer suggests "implementing properly" — grep for actual usage. Unused = remove (YAGNI).</rule>

+ <rule>**Conflicts with human partner's decisions:** Stop and discuss with human partner first.</rule>

+ </rules>

- ## Real Examples

+ ## When to push back

- **Performative Agreement (Bad):**

- ```

- Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"

- ❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

- ```

+ Push back when: suggestion breaks existing functionality, reviewer lacks context, violates YAGNI, technically incorrect, legacy/compat reasons exist, conflicts with architectural decisions.

- **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?"

- ```

+ **How:** Technical reasoning, specific questions, reference working tests/code.

- **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?"

- ```

+ ## Acknowledging correct feedback

- **Unclear Item (Good):**

- ```

- your human partner: "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."

- ```

+ <example type="good">

+ "Fixed. [Brief description]" / "Good catch — [issue]. Fixed in [location]." / [Just fix it]

+ </example>

- ## GitHub Thread Replies

+ <example type="bad">

+ "You're absolutely right!" / "Great point!" / "Thanks for [anything]" / ANY gratitude expression

+ </example>

- 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.

+ ## If pushback was wrong

- ## The Bottom Line

+ State factually: "You were right — I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." No long apology or defending.

- **External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**

+ ## GitHub thread replies

- Verify. Question. Then implement.

+ Reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.

- No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

+ </skill>