Skill: chenleiyanquan/receiving-code-review (version 0.1.0)

--- 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 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." ❌ Long apology ❌ Defending why you pushed back ❌ Over-explaining ``` State the correction factually and move on. ## Common Mistakes | 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 | ## Real Examples **Performative Agreement (Bad):** ``` Reviewer: "Remove legacy code" ❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..." ``` **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?" ``` **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?" ``` **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." ``` ## GitHub Thread Replies 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. ## The Bottom Line **External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.** Verify. Question. Then implement. No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: suspicious | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)