Receiving Code Review

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 say:

• "You're absolutely right!"
• "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!"
• "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
• "Thanks for catching that!"
• Any gratitude expression

INSTEAD:

• Restate the technical requirement
• Ask clarifying questions
• Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
• Just start working (actions > words)

Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code shows you heard the feedback.

Handling Unclear Feedback

IF any item is unclear:
  STOP - do not implement anything yet
  ASK for clarification on unclear items first

WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

Example:

Reviewer: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.

BAD:  Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
GOOD: "I understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."

Evaluating External Feedback

Before implementing suggestions from reviewers:

1. Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Breaks existing functionality?
3. Reason for current implementation? (it might be intentional)
4. Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Does reviewer understand full context?

If suggestion seems wrong: Push back with technical reasoning.

If can't verify: Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I investigate or proceed?"

If conflicts with prior decisions: Stop and discuss with the decision-maker first.

When to Push Back

Push back when:

• Suggestion breaks existing functionality
• Reviewer lacks full context
• Violates YAGNI (unused feature being "properly implemented")
• Technically incorrect for this stack
• Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
• Conflicts with architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Specific questions
• Reference working tests/code
• Escalate if architectural

YAGNI Check

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

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

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:

GOOD: "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
GOOD: "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
GOOD: [Just fix it and move on]

BAD:  "You're absolutely right!"
BAD:  "Great point!"
BAD:  "Thanks for catching that!"

Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

GOOD: "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
GOOD: "Verified and you're correct. My understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."

BAD:  Long apology
BAD:  Defending why you pushed back

State the correction factually and move on.

Common Mistakes

GitHub Thread Replies

When replying to inline review comments, reply in the comment thread (gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies), not as a top-level PR comment.