| name | Code-Review-Reception |
| description | 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 implementation |
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