skill-review-response

Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than /octo:* slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, see skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.

Receiving Code Review

Core Principle

Code review requires technical evaluation, not performative agreement.

Never blindly implement review feedback. Verify it's correct for THIS codebase before changing anything.

The Response Pattern

WHEN receiving code review feedback:

1. READ    — Complete feedback without reacting
2. RESTATE — Summarize the requirement in your own words
3. VERIFY  — Check against actual codebase state
4. EVALUATE — Is this technically sound for THIS context?
5. RESPOND — Technical acknowledgment OR reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT — One item at a time, verify each change

Forbidden Responses

NEVER say:

• "You're absolutely right!" (without verification)
• "Great catch!" (before confirming it IS a catch)
• "I'll fix that right away!" (before evaluating whether it needs fixing)
• "Done!" (without running verification — see skill-verification-gate)

These are social performance, not technical evaluation. They lead to:

• Implementing wrong suggestions
• Introducing bugs to "fix" non-issues
• Wasting time on style preferences disguised as bugs

Evaluation Checklist

For each piece of feedback:

Question	If YES	If NO
Is the issue real? (verify in code)	Continue evaluation	Push back with evidence
Does the suggested fix work here?	Continue evaluation	Propose alternative
Does fixing this break something else?	Fix both or push back	Implement the fix
Is this a style preference or a real problem?	Acknowledge, deprioritize	Fix it
Was this already considered and rejected?	Explain the trade-off	Implement

How to Push Back

When feedback is wrong or doesn't apply:

> Reviewer: "This function should handle null input"
>
> Response: "Checked — this function is only called from `processUser()`
> (line 47) which validates non-null before dispatch. Adding null handling
> here would be dead code. The caller contract guarantees non-null."

Provide:

1. What you checked
2. Why the suggestion doesn't apply
3. Evidence (line numbers, call sites, tests)

Multi-Provider Review Context

In Claude Octopus workflows, review feedback comes from multiple sources:

• Codex review — tends toward enterprise patterns, may over-engineer
• Gemini review — tends toward ecosystem conformity, may suggest unnecessary deps
• Claude review — tends toward elegance, may under-engineer error handling
• Sonnet review — tends toward thoroughness, may flag low-priority issues

When providers disagree:

• Check which provider's suggestion matches the ACTUAL codebase conventions
• The codebase's existing patterns win over any provider's preferences
• If two providers flag the same issue, it's probably real

Handling Feedback Loops

When a reviewer flags an issue and you fix it:

1. Make the fix
2. Run verification (skill-verification-gate) — prove the fix works
3. Re-read the original feedback — did you address the root cause or just the symptom?
4. If the reviewer re-reviews and finds new issues, that's normal — don't get frustrated
5. Each round should have FEWER issues, not different ones

If the same issue keeps coming back:

• You're fixing symptoms, not the root cause
• Stop and re-read the feedback from scratch
• Ask the reviewer to clarify if the issue is ambiguous

When Review Feedback Conflicts with Requirements

If a reviewer suggests something that contradicts the spec/requirements:

1. Note the conflict explicitly
2. Check if the spec is wrong (it might be)
3. If spec is correct: implement the spec, note the reviewer's concern for future consideration
4. If spec is wrong: flag to the user before changing anything

Requirements trump review suggestions. User intent trumps both.