Skip to main content
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. Verify before implementing, ask before assuming, and prioritize technical correctness over social comfort.

​
Core Principle

Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort. Code review is about making the code better, not making people feel good. The skill enforces technical rigor and honest evaluation of feedback.

​
The Response Pattern

1

READ

Read the complete feedback without reacting
2

UNDERSTAND

Restate the requirement in your own words (or ask for clarification)
3

VERIFY

Check the feedback against codebase reality
4

EVALUATE

Is this technically sound for THIS codebase?
5

RESPOND

Give technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6

IMPLEMENT

One item at a time, testing each change

​
Forbidden Responses

NEVER say:
  • “You’re absolutely right!” (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
  • “Great point!” / “Excellent feedback!” (performative)
  • “Let me implement that now” (before verification)
  • “Thanks for [anything]” (any gratitude expression)
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: Partial Understanding

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 is unclear
  • No performative agreement
  • Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

​
From External Reviewers

Before implementing external feedback, verify:
  1. Is this technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Does it break existing functionality?
  3. Is there a reason for the current implementation?
  4. Does it work on all platforms/versions?
  5. Does the reviewer understand the full context?
If suggestion seems wrong: Push back with technical reasoning If you can’t easily verify: Say so: “I can’t verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?” If it 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

1

Clarify first

Clarify anything unclear before implementing anything
2

Implement by priority

  1. Blocking issues - Breaks, security vulnerabilities
  2. Simple fixes - Typos, imports, formatting
  3. Complex fixes - Refactoring, logic changes
3

Test individually

Test each fix individually to catch regressions
4

Verify no regressions

Run full test suite to ensure nothing broke

​
When to Push Back

Push back when feedback:
  • Breaks existing functionality
  • Shows reviewer lacks full context
  • Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
  • Is technically incorrect for this stack
  • Conflicts with legacy/compatibility requirements
  • 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: “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

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

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

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?"

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?"

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 using:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies
Do not post 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.

Build docs developers (and LLMs) love

Get started for freeTalk to us