review-feedback

# Review Feedback

## 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 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:**
- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (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:**
```
your human partner: "Fix 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 codebase?
  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
  5. 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/ask/proceed]?"

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

**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

```
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  grep codebase for actual usage

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

**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."

## 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)
  3. Test each fix individually
  4. Verify 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 your human partner's architectural decisions

**How to push back:**
- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Involve your human partner if architectural

**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

## 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]

❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
```

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

**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.

## 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.

## 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 |

## Real Examples

**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
```

**Technical Verification (Good):**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
```

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

**Unclear Item (Good):**
```
your human partner: "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."
```

## 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.

## Calibration ledger emit (Tier B stub — standalone only)

<!-- CANONICAL: shared/ledger-append.md -->

**Standalone top-level invocation ONLY.** Emit a ledger row IFF `review-feedback` was invoked as its own top-level feedback-evaluation session (a user `/review-feedback`, or an orchestrator dispatching it as a discrete step that owns a run). When this skill's discipline is applied **inline** inside another skill's flow, emit **nothing** — that host skill owns its own ledger row. There is no run lifecycle for an inline application, so there is no `run_id` to mint and nothing to emit.

When (and only when) running standalone, at the terminal conclusion emit ONE **Tier B STUB** JSONL line to the **central ledger** (`~/.claude/crucible/ledger/runs.jsonl`) via the `emit` CLI per `skills/shared/ledger-append.md` — resolve `scripts/ledger_append.py` by absolute path from the plugin root and run `python3 <script> emit - '<json>'`.

- Mint exactly ONE UUIDv7 (`scripts/uuid7.py`) at the start of the standalone session and reuse it for the single emit at the terminal conclusion (not mid-flow). `(run_id, skill="review-feedback")` dedup (L-2) guarantees idempotency.
- The `emit` CLI owns the mechanics: graceful skip on `CRUCIBLE_CALIBRATION_DISABLED=1` (L-6), and auto-fill of `repo` + `schema_version`. If the script can't be resolved, warn to stderr and skip — a missing emit must **never block** the skill.
- Populate ONLY meaningful values: `schema_version: 2`, `run_id`, `skill: "review-feedback"`, `tier: "B"`, `verdict` (feedback evaluated and resolved → `PASS`; feedback disputed / routed to the user → `ESCALATED`), `timestamp` (ISO-8601 UTC), `gated_files` (the reviewed artifact's files, repo-relative), `artifact_type` (per the reviewed artifact; default `code`).
- Set ALL calibration fields EXPLICITLY null per "Tier-B null semantics": `severity_histogram`, `highest_finding`, `would_have_shipped_without_gate`, `findings_count`, `confidence`, `chunk_hash`, `rounds`, `predicted_falsifier` — all `null`. Also `gated_files_truncated: 0`, `comment: null`, `backfilled: false`, `falsified: null`, `falsified_by: null`.
- **No advisory wiring.** review-feedback produces no confidence-weighted verdict, so Brier is not viable and no `brier_advisory` is read here by design.

## The Bottom Line

**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.