Receiving Feedback

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 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!"
• "Thanks for catching that!"
• "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:

Feedback: "Fix items 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."

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 architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions
• Reference working tests/code
• Provide evidence

Evaluating External Feedback

BEFORE implementing suggestion:
  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. 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?"

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)

1. Test each fix individually
2. Verify no regressions

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]

NOT:

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

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

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. Fixing."

State the correction factually and move on. No long apology needed.

Common Mistakes

Real Examples

Performative (Bad):

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

Technical (Good):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
"Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+.
Need legacy for backward compat. Fix bundle ID or drop pre-13 support?"

YAGNI Check (Good):

Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics with database, filters, CSV export"
"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)?
Or is there usage I'm missing?"

The Bottom Line

Feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.