Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative

Code Review Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence based claims, and verification over performative responses. Overview Code review requires three distinct practices: 1. Receiving feedback Technical evaluation over performative agreement 2. Requesting reviews Systematic review via code reviewer subagent 3. Verification gates Evidence before any completion claims Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files. Core Principle Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims. When to Use This Skill Receiving Feedback Trigger when: Receiving code review comments from any source Feedback seems unclear or technically questionable Multiple review items need prioritization External reviewer lacks full context Suggestion conflicts with existing decisions Reference: references/code review reception.md Requesting Review Trigger when: Completing tasks in subagent driven development (after EACH task) Finishing major features or refactors Before merging to main branch Stuck and need fresh perspective After fixing complex bugs Reference: references/requesting code review.md Verification Gates Trigger when: About to claim tests pass, build succeeds, or work is complete Before committing, pushing, or creating PRs Moving to next task Any statement suggesting success/completion Expressing satisfaction with work Reference: references/verification before completion.md Quick Decision Tree Receiving Feedback Protocol Response Pattern READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT Key Rules ❌ No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!", "Thanks for [anything]" ❌ No implementation before verification ✅ Restate requirement, ask questions, push back with technical reasoning, or just start working ✅ If unclear: STOP and ask for clarification on ALL unclear items first ✅ YAGNI check: grep for usage before implementing suggested "proper" features Source Handling Human partner: Trusted implement after understanding, no performative agreement External reviewers: Verify technically correct, check for breakage, push back if wrong Full protocol: references/code review reception.md Requesting Review Protocol When to Request After each task in subagent driven development After major feature completion Before merge to main Process 1. Get git SHAs: BASE SHA=$(git rev parse HEAD~1) and HEAD SHA=$(git rev parse HEAD) 2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent via Task tool with: WHAT WAS IMPLEMENTED, PLAN OR REQUIREMENTS, BASE SHA, HEAD SHA, DESCRIPTION 3. Act on feedback: Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding, note Minor for later Full protocol: references/requesting code review.md Verification Gates Protocol The Iron Law NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE Gate Function IDENTIFY command → RUN full command → READ output → VERIFY confirms claim → THEN claim Skip any step = lying, not verifying Requirements Tests pass: Test output shows 0 failures Build succeeds: Build command exit 0 Bug fixed: Test original symptom passes Requirements met: Line by line checklist verified Red Flags STOP Using "should"/"probably"/"seems to", expressing satisfaction before verification, committing without verification, trusting agent reports, ANY wording implying success without running verification Full protocol: references/verification before completion.md Integration with Workflows Subagent Driven: Review after EACH task, verify before moving to next Pull Requests: Verify tests pass, request code reviewer review before merge General: Apply verification gates before any status claims, push back on invalid feedback Bottom Line 1. Technical rigor over social performance No performative agreement 2. Systematic review processes Use code reviewer subagent 3. Evidence before claims Verification gates always Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.

code-review