Receiving code review

Skill tspry/superpowers-devops/skills/receiving-code-review

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 implementationFrom its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add tspry/superpowers-devops --skill receiving-code-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

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/infra reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS environment?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, verify each

Forbidden Responses

NEVER:

"You're absolutely right!" (performative)
"Great point!" (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:

Reviewer: "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."

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 environment?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Works in all target environments?
  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?

IF suggestion seems wrong:
  Push back with technical reasoning

IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first

YAGNI Check for "Proper" Features

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  Check if the feature is actually used

  IF unused: "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
  IF used: Then implement properly

Implementation Order

FOR multi-item feedback:
  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
  2. Then implement in this order:
     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
     - Simple fixes (typos, config values)
     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
  3. Verify each fix individually
  4. Confirm 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 architectural decisions

How to push back:

Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
Ask specific questions
Reference working tests/config/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.

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.

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 the change]

❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ ANY gratitude expression

Actions speak. Just fix it.

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Performative agreement	State requirement or just act
Blind implementation	Verify against codebase first
Batch without verifying	One at a time, verify each
Assuming reviewer is right	Check if it breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first
Can't verify, proceed anyway	State limitation, ask for direction

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.