superpowers-receiving-code-review

Handle code-review feedback by applying a six-step process: read, understand, verify, evaluate, respond, and implement. This enforces technical rigor and requires clarifications for ambiguous items before writing any code.

The best way to process code review comments is using a verification-first approach with per-item implementation. This requires technical justification for each change, applying them one at a time to minimize risk and prevent superficial agreement.

Verify technically questionable PR review feedback by enforcing a structured evaluation step before responding. This requires demanding technical justification and clarifications for questionable items, ensuring changes are validated before implementation.

Yes, you can use a structured code review workflow for multi-review scenarios. The six-step process provides consistency across standard PR reviews and multiple-reviewer workflows, enforcing technical evaluation for every item.

Technical justification for each code-review change is needed to enforce a verification-first approach. Guardrails require you to verify requirements and evaluate feedback before implementing, minimizing risk and avoiding performative agreement.

The limitation of per-item implementation is that it requires strict sequential execution of the six-step process for each piece of feedback. This enforces guardrails and minimizes risk, but may slow down workflows with high volumes of trivial comments.