receiving-code-review

To process code review feedback safely, verify incoming comments against the current codebase, architecture contracts, and release boundaries. Triage items into blocking corrections, clarifications, and questionable suggestions to ground your responses technically rather than performing them blindly.

Triage reviewer comments in a brownfield codebase by classifying them into blocking corrections, clarifications, technically questionable suggestions, and optional improvements. Verify each item against existing architecture contracts and the current codebase state before deciding to implement or push back.

Document decisions and evidence for code review comments by generating a structured review-response-record. This record captures your implementation decisions, verification evidence against codebase contracts, and unresolved questions, making it ready for direct integration into your workflow.

Push back on technically questionable suggestions when they fail verification against the current codebase state or architecture contracts. Use the structured review-response-record to document your reasoning and evidence, ensuring your response is technically grounded rather than performative.

Yes, you can use this workflow to verify review feedback against existing architecture contracts. It checks that suggested changes align with codebase state, architecture decisions, and release boundaries, ensuring that any blocking corrections or clarifications respect established technical constraints.

Automating code review response generation requires checking suggestions against the actual codebase state and architecture contracts. It cannot blindly implement feedback without verification, and it may leave unresolved questions in the review-response-record if the evidence is insufficient or the context is ambiguous.