receiving-code-review

Original：🇺🇸 English
Translated

Assesses and responds to incoming code review feedback on PRs (reviewer comments, requested changes), especially when suggestions are unclear, technically questionable, or scope-expanding. Use before implementing review suggestions to align on intent and keep changes minimal.

2installs
Sourceizyanrajwani/agent-skills-library
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add izyanrajwani/agent-skills-library receiving-code-review

Tags

Translated version includes tags in frontmatter
code-reviewpull-requestcode-qualityengineering-practicefeedback-management

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

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.

When NOT to Use

  • Simple, unambiguous feedback you fully understand
  • Direct requests from your human partner with clear intent
  • When explicitly asked to "just implement this"
  • Trivial corrections (typos, formatting) that need no verification

The Response Pattern

text
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!" (performative; violates anti-sycophancy norms)
  • "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

text
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:
text
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

text
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
Principle: External feedback warrants skepticism but thorough checking.

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

text
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
Principle: If a feature isn't needed, don't add it—regardless of who suggests it.

Implementation Order

text
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

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

When feedback IS correct:
text
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
(See Forbidden Responses above for what NOT to say)
Why no thanks: Actions speak. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:
text
✅ "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

MistakeFix
Performative agreementState requirement or just act
Blind implementationVerify against codebase first
Batch without testingOne at a time, test each
Assuming reviewer is rightCheck if breaks things
Avoiding pushbackTechnical correctness > comfort
Partial implementationClarify all items first
Can't verify, proceed anywayState limitation, ask for direction

Real Examples

Performative Agreement (Bad):
text
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
Technical Verification (Good):
text
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):
text
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):
text
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."

The Bottom Line

External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.