From gangsta
Processes code review feedback with technical rigor: read and restate, verify against codebase, evaluate soundness, clarify unclear items, push back reasonably, implement prioritized.
npx claudepluginhub kucherenko/gangsta --plugin gangstaThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. The family respects those who push back with reason, not yes-men.
Processes code review feedback technically: verify suggestions against codebase, clarify unclear items, push back if questionable, implement after evaluation—not blind agreement.
Guides handling code review feedback via technical verification, clarification requests, reasoned responses, and ordered implementation. Avoids emotional or performative replies.
Guides technical processing of code review feedback: read, understand, verify, evaluate, and respond before implementing, especially unclear or questionable suggestions.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance. The family respects those who push back with reason, not yes-men.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
WHEN receiving 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
NEVER:
INSTEAD:
IF any item is unclear:
STOP — do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on ALL unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
The Don: "Fix items 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."
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 or proceed?"
IF conflicts with the Don's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with the Don first
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
grep codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This isn't called anywhere. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
The Don decides what features the family needs. Don't add features nobody asked for.
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
Push back when:
How to push back:
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!"
❌ ANY performative gratitude
Actions speak. Just fix it. The code shows you heard the feedback.
If you pushed back and were wrong:
✅ "Verified — you were right. [X] does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Checked and confirmed. My initial read was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining
State the correction factually and move on.
| 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 it breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask the Don |
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.