Code Review Discipline

Two sides: requesting reviews and receiving feedback.
Core principle: Review early, often. Verify before implementing. Technical correctness over social comfort.

---

Requesting Review

Dispatch clavain:plan-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade.

When mandatory: After each task in subagent-driven development; after major feature; before merge to main.
When optional: When stuck; before refactoring; after fixing complex bug.

How to Request

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

Use Task tool with clavain:plan-reviewer type. Fill template at code-review-discipline/code-reviewer.md with: {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}, {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}, {BASE_SHA}, {HEAD_SHA}, {DESCRIPTION}.

Act on feedback: Fix Critical immediately; fix Important before proceeding; note Minor for later; push back with reasoning if reviewer is wrong.

Integration:

• Subagent-Driven Development: review after EACH task
• Executing Plans: review after each batch (3 tasks)
• Ad-Hoc: review before merge or when stuck

---

Receiving Feedback

Response Pattern

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!" / "Great point!" / "Let me implement that now" (before verification).
Instead: restate the technical requirement, ask clarifying questions, push back with technical reasoning, or just start working.

Unclear Feedback

STOP — do not implement anything. Ask for clarification first. Items may be related; partial understanding → wrong implementation.

Source-Specific Handling

Human partner: Trusted — implement after understanding. No performative agreement. Skip to action.

External reviewers: Before implementing:

1. Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Breaks existing functionality?
3. Reason for current implementation?
4. Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Does reviewer understand full context?

Push back with technical reasoning if wrong. If conflicts with human partner's decisions, stop and discuss with them first.

YAGNI Check

# If reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
grep -r "endpoint_name" .   # Check actual usage
# If unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"

Implementation Order (multi-item feedback)

1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Blocking issues (breaks, security)
3. Simple fixes (typos, imports)
4. Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
5. Test each fix individually, verify no regressions

When to Push Back

• Suggestion breaks existing functionality
• Reviewer lacks full context
• Violates YAGNI
• Technically incorrect for this stack
• Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
• Conflicts with human partner's architectural decisions

Push back with technical reasoning, not defensiveness. Reference working tests/code.
Signal if uncomfortable pushing back: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ Just fix it and show in code

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

Correcting Your Own Pushback

✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
❌ Long apology or defending why you pushed back

GitHub Thread Replies

Reply inline in the comment thread: gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies — not as a top-level PR comment.

---

Red Flags

Never: skip review ("it's simple"), ignore Critical issues, proceed with unfixed Important issues, say "looks good" without checking, implement before verifying.

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

See review template: code-review-discipline/code-reviewer.md