receiving-code-review

Code review feedback is structured using a six-step workflow: Read, Understand, Verify, Evaluate, Respond, and Implement. This protocol translates PR comments into auditable, incremental changes by validating each item against the codebase before coding.

Handling unclear code review comments requires requesting clarification on all ambiguous items before proceeding. This prevents partial or incorrect implementations by ensuring every requirement is fully understood prior to making any codebase changes.

Pushback on code review comments requires providing clear, justified counterpoints when the reviewer is wrong. The evaluate step verifies the feedback against the actual codebase, allowing you to respond with technical evidence rather than subjective disagreement.

Yes, the structured workflow applies to both internal Centinela QA findings and external PR comments. It provides source-specific guidance with explicit escalation rules, ensuring consistent handling of feedback regardless of the reviewer's origin.

Verifying code review feedback against the codebase ensures technical rigor by validating the reviewer's claims before implementation. This step prevents unnecessary code changes, confirms the issue exists, and forms the basis for justified pushback if the feedback is incorrect.

Without a structured protocol, code review feedback processing risks missing technical context, implementing incorrect changes, or failing to request clarification on ambiguous items, leading to unverified modifications and unresolved pull request discussions.