receiving-code-review

# Receiving Code Review

Verify feedback before implementing. No performative agreement.

## Purpose

Code review feedback requires rigorous evaluation, not automatic acceptance.
Reviewers may lack context, make incorrect suggestions, or propose changes
that conflict with project requirements. This skill enforces verification
before implementation.

## The Iron Law

**Evaluate suggestions rigorously before implementing.**

Not all feedback is correct. Not all suggestions improve the code. Your job
is to verify, not to agree performatively.

## Prohibited Responses

Never respond with:

- "You're absolutely right!"
- "Great catch!"
- "Thanks for catching that!"
- "Of course, I should have seen that!"
- Any excessive praise or validation

These are performative, not technical. They waste time and signal you're not
actually evaluating the feedback.

## The Response Pattern

For each piece of feedback, complete these steps:

### Step 1: Read Completely

Read the entire feedback before reacting:

- Full comment, not just the first line
- Any linked context or references
- The specific code being discussed

### Step 2: Restate Requirements

Restate what the reviewer is asking for:

```text
"The feedback requests: [restatement in your own words]"
```

If you can't restate it clearly, you don't understand it.

### Step 3: Verify Against Codebase

Check whether the suggestion is correct for THIS codebase:

```text
Questions to answer:
- Is the reviewer's assumption about the code correct?
- Does this file/function work the way they think?
- Are there constraints they might not know about?
```

### Step 4: Assess Technical Soundness

Evaluate whether the suggestion is technically sound:

```text
Consider:
- Will this change break existing functionality?
- Does it align with project patterns?
- Is the suggested approach better than alternatives?
- What are the trade-offs?
```

### Step 5: Respond Appropriately

**If feedback is valid**: Implement it, then respond factually.

`