Receiving Code Review

Code Review Reception

Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Core principle: Fetch feedback → Verify → Implement → Re-test → Push updates.

Announce at start: "I'm using the Nori Receiving Code Review skill to handle this feedback."

The Process

Step 0: Create Todo List

For multi-item feedback, use TodoWrite:

- [ ] Fetch and read all PR comments
- [ ] Clarify unclear items (if any)
- [ ] Fix item 1: [description]
- [ ] Fix item 2: [description]
...
- [ ] Run tests/lint/format
- [ ] Push updates

Why: Prevents skipping items and provides visibility to user.

Step 1: Fetch PR Comments

Determine PR number from context:

• User mentions PR number: Use that
• Current branch: Run gh pr view --json number -q .number

Fetch all comments:

# View all comments (review + general)
gh pr view [PR-NUMBER] --comments

Read completely before reacting.

Step 2: Understand and Clarify

Apply these checks to each item:

• [ ] Can I restate this requirement in my own words?
• [ ] Is this technically sound for THIS codebase?
• [ ] Does this break existing functionality?
• [ ] Is there a reason for the current implementation?

CRITICAL: If ANY item is unclear, STOP. Ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before implementing ANYTHING.

Example:

User: "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."
❌ Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later

Step 3: Implement Changes

Follow implementation order:

• Blocking issues (breaks, security)
• Simple fixes (typos, imports)
• Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)

For each fix:

• [ ] Implement one at a time
• [ ] Test individually
• [ ] Commit individually (frequent commits)

YAGNI check: If reviewer suggests "implementing properly", grep for actual usage:

grep -r "endpointName" .

If unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"

Step 4: Run Tests, Lint, and Format

Reference finishing-a-development-branch skill (Steps 1-2):

See .claude/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md

• [ ] Run tests: npm test (or project equivalent)
• If tests fail, fix before proceeding
• [ ] Run type checks: npm run lint:*-types (if available)
• If type errors, fix before proceeding
• [ ] Run formatter: npm run format
• [ ] Run linter: npm run lint
• [ ] Verify changes: git diff --stat

Step 5: Push Updates

Push changes to PR:

git push

Step 6: Summary and Next Action

Report what changed:

"Code review feedback addressed:

• Fixed [item 1]: [brief description]
• Fixed [item 2]: [brief description]

...

Changes pushed to PR. Options:

• Done - PR is ready for re-review
• More feedback - Additional changes needed
• Show changes - Review diffs before marking done

Which would you like?"

Quick Reference Checklist

• [ ] Create TodoWrite for all feedback items
• [ ] Fetch PR comments (gh pr view --comments)
• [ ] Clarify ALL unclear items before implementing ANY
• [ ] Implement in order: blocking → simple → complex
• [ ] Test each fix individually
• [ ] Run tests, type checks, formatting, linting (finishing-a-development-branch)
• [ ] Push updates
• [ ] Summarize changes and ask for next action

Response Tone Guidelines

Forbidden:

• "You're absolutely right!" / "Great point!" / "Thanks for..." (performative agreement)
• Implementing before verifying against codebase
• Proceeding with unclear feedback

Required:

• Verify suggestions against codebase reality before implementing
• Push back with technical reasoning if suggestion breaks things or violates YAGNI
• Ask for clarification on ALL unclear items before implementing ANY items
• State fixes factually: "Fixed. [what changed]" or just show the code

YAGNI check: If reviewer suggests "implementing properly", grep for actual usage. If unused, ask: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"

When wrong after pushing back: "You were right - checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now." No apology needed.

External reviewers: Check if technically correct for THIS codebase, works on all platforms, doesn't conflict with partner's prior decisions. If conflicts, discuss with partner first.

Signal discomfort pushing back: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Fix |

| ---------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |

| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |

| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |

| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |

| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |

| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |

| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |

| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip creating TodoWrite for multi-item feedback
• Implement without verifying against codebase
• Proceed with unclear feedback
• Skip tests/linting/formatting before pushing

Always:

• Read all feedback completely first
• Clarify unclear items before implementing
• Test each fix individually
• Run full verification before pushing
• Provide summary of changes to user