Receiving Code Review

by obra5bf4e7801107No license290K starsListed Sep 23, 2026Updated Sep 23, 2026Repository updated yesterday

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

Instructions only

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 reacting2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each

Forbidden Responses

NEVER:

  • "You're absolutely right!" (explicit instruction-file 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

If you're uncomfortable pushing back out loud: Name that tension, then tell your partner about the issue you've seen. They'll appreciate your honesty.

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

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):

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.

Source and attribution

Source:obra/superpowersinskills/receiving-code-reviewat commit5bf4e78

License: No license

Content belongs to its original authors. SourceWeft indexes it from a public repository.

Report or request removal

More from obra/superpowers

Writing Plans

obra

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

Awaiting classification290Kupdated yesterday

Verification Before Completion

obra

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

Awaiting classification290Kupdated yesterday

Using Superpowers

obra

Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring skill invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions

Awaiting classification290Kupdated yesterday

Using Git Worktrees

obra

Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback

Awaiting classification290Kupdated yesterday

Test Driven Development

obra

Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code

Awaiting classification290Kupdated yesterday

Requesting Code Review

obra

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

Awaiting classification290Kupdated yesterday