test-dev

Skill consolidé (fusion de : systematic-debugging, test-driven-development, verification-before-completion, requesting-code-review, receiving-code-review). Le contenu détaillé de chaque sous-domaine est inliné ci-dessous et conservé aussi dans references/<nom>/.

systematic-debugging

Systematic Debugging

Overview

Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.

Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.

Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.

The Iron Law

NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST

If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.

When to Use

Use for ANY technical issue:

• Test failures
• Bugs in production
• Unexpected behavior
• Performance problems
• Build failures
• Integration issues

Use this ESPECIALLY when:

• Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
• "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
• You've already tried multiple fixes
• Previous fix didn't work
• You don't fully understand the issue

Don't skip when:

• Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
• You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
• Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)

The Four Phases

You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

BEFORE attempting ANY fix:

1. Read Error Messages Carefully

   • Don't skip past errors or warnings
   • They often contain the exact solution
   • Read stack traces completely
   • Note line numbers, file paths, error codes

2. Reproduce Consistently

   • Can you trigger it reliably?
   • What are the exact steps?
   • Does it happen every time?
   • If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess

3. Check Recent Changes

   • What changed that could cause this?
   • Git diff, recent commits
   • New dependencies, config changes
   • Environmental differences

4. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems

   WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):

   BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:

   For EACH component boundary:
     - Log what data enters component
     - Log what data exits component
     - Verify environment/config propagation
     - Check state at each layer
   
   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
   THEN investigate that specific component
   

   Example (multi-layer system):

   # Layer 1: Workflow
   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
   
   # Layer 2: Build script
   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
   
   # Layer 3: Signing script
   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
   security list-keychains
   security find-identity -v
   
   # Layer 4: Actual signing
   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
   

   This reveals: Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)

5. Trace Data Flow

   WHEN error is deep in call stack:

   See root-cause-tracing.md in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.

   Quick version:

   • Where does bad value originate?
   • What called this with bad value?
   • Keep tracing up until you find the source
   • Fix at source, not at symptom

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

Find the pattern before fixing:

1. Find Working Examples

   • Locate similar working code in same codebase
   • What works that's similar to what's broken?

2. Compare Against References

   • If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
   • Don't skim - read every line
   • Understand the pattern fully before applying

3. Identify Differences

   • What's different between working and broken?
   • List every difference, however small
   • Don't assume "that can't matter"

4. Understand Dependencies

   • What other components does this need?
   • What settings, config, environment?
   • What assumptions does it make?

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

Scientific method:

1. Form Single Hypothesis

   • State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
   • Write it down
   • Be specific, not vague

2. Test Minimally

   • Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
   • One variable at a time
   • Don't fix multiple things at once

3. Verify Before Continuing

   • Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
   • Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
   • DON'T add more fixes on top

4. When You Don't Know

   • Say "I don't understand X"
   • Don't pretend to know
   • Ask for help
   • Research more

Phase 4: Implementation

Fix the root cause, not the symptom:

1. Create Failing Test Case

   • Simplest possible reproduction
   • Automated test if possible
   • One-off test script if no framework
   • MUST have before fixing
   • Use the superpowers:test-driven-development skill for writing proper failing tests

2. Implement Single Fix

   • Address the root cause identified
   • ONE change at a time
   • No "while I'm here" improvements
   • No bundled refactoring

3. Verify Fix

   • Test passes now?
   • No other tests broken?
   • Issue actually resolved?

4. If Fix Doesn't Work

   • STOP
   • Count: How many fixes have you tried?
   • If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
   • If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)
   • DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion

5. If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture

   Pattern indicating architectural problem:

   • Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
   • Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
   • Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

   STOP and question fundamentals:

   • Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
   • Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
   • Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?

   Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes

   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.

Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process

If you catch yourself thinking:

• "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
• "Just try changing X and see if it works"
• "Add multiple changes, run tests"
• "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
• "It's probably X, let me fix that"
• "I don't fully understand but this might work"
• "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
• "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
• Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
• "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
• Each fix reveals new problem in different place

ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

If 3+ fixes failed: Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)

your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong

Watch for these redirections:

• "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
• "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
• "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
• "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
• "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working

When you see these: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Issue is simple, don't need process"	Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs.
"Emergency, no time for process"	Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing.
"Just try this first, then investigate"	First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start.
"I'll write test after confirming fix works"	Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it.
"Multiple fixes at once saves time"	Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs.
"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern"	Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely.
"I see the problem, let me fix it"	Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause.
"One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures)	3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again.

Quick Reference

Phase	Key Activities	Success Criteria
1. Root Cause	Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence	Understand WHAT and WHY
2. Pattern	Find working examples, compare	Identify differences
3. Hypothesis	Form theory, test minimally	Confirmed or new hypothesis
4. Implementation	Create test, fix, verify	Bug resolved, tests pass

When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"

If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:

1. You've completed the process
2. Document what you investigated
3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation

But: 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.

Supporting Techniques

These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:

• root-cause-tracing.md - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
• defense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
• condition-based-waiting.md - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling

Related skills:

• superpowers:test-driven-development - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
• superpowers:verification-before-completion - Verify fix worked before claiming success

Real-World Impact

From debugging sessions:

• Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
• Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
• First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
• New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

---

test-driven-development

Test-Driven Development (TDD)

Overview

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.

Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

When to Use

Always:

• New features
• Bug fixes
• Refactoring
• Behavior changes

Exceptions (ask your human partner):

• Throwaway prototypes
• Generated code
• Configuration files

Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.

The Iron Law

NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST

Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.

No exceptions:

• Don't keep it as "reference"
• Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
• Don't look at it
• Delete means delete

Implement fresh from tests. Period.

Red-Green-Refactor

digraph tdd_cycle {
    rankdir=LR;
    red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
    green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
    refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];

    red -> verify_red;
    verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
    verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
    green -> verify_green;
    verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
    verify_green -> green [label="no"];
    refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
    verify_green -> next;
    next -> red;
}

RED - Write Failing Test

Write one minimal test showing what should happen.

<Good> ```typescript test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => { let attempts = 0; const operation = () => { attempts++; if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail'); return 'success'; };

const result = await retryOperation(operation);

expect(result).toBe('success'); expect(attempts).toBe(3); });

Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>

<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
  const mock = jest.fn()
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
    .mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
  await retryOperation(mock);
  expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});

Vague name, tests mock not code </Bad>

Requirements:

• One behavior
• Clear name
• Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)

Verify RED - Watch It Fail

MANDATORY. Never skip.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

• Test fails (not errors)
• Failure message is expected
• Fails because feature missing (not typos)

Test passes? You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.

Test errors? Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.

GREEN - Minimal Code

Write simplest code to pass the test.

<Good> ```typescript async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> { for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) { try { return await fn(); } catch (e) { if (i === 2) throw e; } } throw new Error('unreachable'); } ``` Just enough to pass </Good> <Bad> ```typescript async function retryOperation<T>( fn: () => Promise<T>, options?: { maxRetries?: number; backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential'; onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void; } ): Promise<T> { // YAGNI } ``` Over-engineered </Bad>

Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.

Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass

MANDATORY.

npm test path/to/test.test.ts

Confirm:

• Test passes
• Other tests still pass
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)

Test fails? Fix code, not test.

Other tests fail? Fix now.

REFACTOR - Clean Up

After green only:

• Remove duplication
• Improve names
• Extract helpers

Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.

Repeat

Next failing test for next feature.

Good Tests

Quality	Good	Bad
Minimal	One thing. "and" in name? Split it.	test('validates email and domain and whitespace')
Clear	Name describes behavior	test('test1')
Shows intent	Demonstrates desired API	Obscures what code should do

Why Order Matters

"I'll write tests after to verify it works"

Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:

• Might test wrong thing
• Might test implementation, not behavior
• Might miss edge cases you forgot
• You never saw it catch the bug

Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.

"I already manually tested all the edge cases"

Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:

• No record of what you tested
• Can't re-run when code changes
• Easy to forget cases under pressure
• "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive

Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.

"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"

Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:

• Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
• Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)

The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.

"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"

TDD IS pragmatic:

• Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
• Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
• Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
• Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)

"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.

"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"

No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"

Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.

Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).

30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Too simple to test"	Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds.
"I'll test after"	Tests passing immediately prove nothing.
"Tests after achieve same goals"	Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?"
"Already manually tested"	Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run.
"Deleting X hours is wasteful"	Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt.
"Keep as reference, write tests first"	You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete.
"Need to explore first"	Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD.
"Test hard = design unclear"	Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use.
"TDD will slow me down"	TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first.
"Manual test faster"	Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change.
"Existing code has no tests"	You're improving it. Add tests for existing code.

Red Flags - STOP and Start Over

• Code before test
• Test after implementation
• Test passes immediately
• Can't explain why test failed
• Tests added "later"
• Rationalizing "just this once"
• "I already manually tested it"
• "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
• "It's about spirit not ritual"
• "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
• "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
• "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
• "This is different because..."

All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.

Example: Bug Fix

Bug: Empty email accepted

RED

test('rejects empty email', async () => {
  const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
  expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});

Verify RED

$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined

GREEN

function submitForm(data: FormData) {
  if (!data.email?.trim()) {
    return { error: 'Email required' };
  }
  // ...
}

Verify GREEN

$ npm test
PASS

REFACTOR Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.

Verification Checklist

Before marking work complete:

• Every new function/method has a test
• Watched each test fail before implementing
• Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
• Wrote minimal code to pass each test
• All tests pass
• Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
• Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
• Edge cases and errors covered

Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.

When Stuck

Problem	Solution
Don't know how to test	Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner.
Test too complicated	Design too complicated. Simplify interface.
Must mock everything	Code too coupled. Use dependency injection.
Test setup huge	Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design.

Debugging Integration

Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.

Never fix bugs without a test.

Testing Anti-Patterns

When adding mocks or test utilities, read @testing-anti-patterns.md to avoid common pitfalls:

• Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
• Adding test-only methods to production classes
• Mocking without understanding dependencies

Final Rule

Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD

No exceptions without your human partner's permission.

---

verification-before-completion

Verification Before Completion

Overview

Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.

Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.

The Gate Function

BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:

1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

Common Failures

Claim	Requires	Not Sufficient
Tests pass	Test command output: 0 failures	Previous run, "should pass"
Linter clean	Linter output: 0 errors	Partial check, extrapolation
Build succeeds	Build command: exit 0	Linter passing, logs look good
Bug fixed	Test original symptom: passes	Code changed, assumed fixed
Regression test works	Red-green cycle verified	Test passes once
Agent completed	VCS diff shows changes	Agent reports "success"
Requirements met	Line-by-line checklist	Tests passing

Red Flags - STOP

• Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
• Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
• About to commit/push/PR without verification
• Trusting agent success reports
• Relying on partial verification
• Thinking "just this once"
• Tired and wanting work over
• ANY wording implying success without having run verification

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"Should work now"	RUN the verification
"I'm confident"	Confidence ≠ evidence
"Just this once"	No exceptions
"Linter passed"	Linter ≠ compiler
"Agent said success"	Verify independently
"I'm tired"	Exhaustion ≠ excuse
"Partial check is enough"	Partial proves nothing
"Different words so rule doesn't apply"	Spirit over letter

Key Patterns

Tests:

✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"

Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):

✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)

Build:

✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)

Requirements:

✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"

Agent delegation:

✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report

Why This Matters

From 24 failure memories:

• your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
• Undefined functions shipped - would crash
• Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
• Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
• Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."

When To Apply

ALWAYS before:

• ANY variation of success/completion claims
• ANY expression of satisfaction
• ANY positive statement about work state
• Committing, PR creation, task completion
• Moving to next task
• Delegating to agents

Rule applies to:

• Exact phrases
• Paraphrases and synonyms
• Implications of success
• ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.

---

requesting-code-review

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After each task in subagent-driven development
• After completing major feature
• Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

• When stuck (fresh perspective)
• Before refactoring (baseline check)
• After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Get git SHAs:

BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Use Task tool with superpowers:code-reviewer type, fill template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

• {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED} - What you just built
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} - What it should do
• {BASE_SHA} - Starting commit
• {HEAD_SHA} - Ending commit
• {DESCRIPTION} - Brief summary

3. Act on feedback:

• Fix Critical issues immediately
• Fix Important issues before proceeding
• Note Minor issues for later
• Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

[Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent]
  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[Subagent returns]:
  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indicators
    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
  Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development:

• Review after EACH task
• Catch issues before they compound
• Fix before moving to next task

Executing Plans:

• Review after each batch (3 tasks)
• Get feedback, apply, continue

Ad-Hoc Development:

• Review before merge
• Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip review because "it's simple"
• Ignore Critical issues
• Proceed with unfixed Important issues
• Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong:

• Push back with technical reasoning
• Show code/tests that prove it works
• Request clarification

See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

---

receiving-code-review

Code Review Reception

Overview

Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.

Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.

The Response Pattern

WHEN receiving code 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

Forbidden Responses

NEVER:

• "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
• "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
• "Let me implement that now" (before verification)

INSTEAD:

• Restate the technical requirement
• Ask clarifying questions
• Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
• Just start working (actions > words)

Handling Unclear Feedback

IF any item is unclear:
  STOP - do not implement anything yet
  ASK for clarification on unclear items

WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.

Example:

your human partner: "Fix 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."

Source-Specific Handling

From your human partner

• Trusted - implement after understanding
• Still ask if scope unclear
• No performative agreement
• Skip to action or technical acknowledgment

From External Reviewers

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/ask/proceed]?"

IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with your human partner first

your human partner's rule: "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"

YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features

IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
  grep codebase for actual usage

  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
  IF used: Then implement properly

your human partner's rule: "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."

Implementation Order

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

When To Push Back

Push back when:

• Suggestion breaks existing functionality
• Reviewer lacks full context
• Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
• Technically incorrect for this stack
• Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
• Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions

How to push back:

• Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
• Ask specific questions
• Reference working tests/code
• Involve your human partner if architectural

Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"

Acknowledging Correct Feedback

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!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression

Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.

If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.

Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback

If you pushed back and were wrong:

✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."

❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining

State the correction factually and move on.

Common Mistakes

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 breaks things
Avoiding pushback	Technical correctness > comfort
Partial implementation	Clarify all items first
Can't verify, proceed anyway	State limitation, ask for direction

Real Examples

Performative Agreement (Bad):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."

Technical Verification (Good):

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"

YAGNI (Good):

Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"

Unclear Item (Good):

your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."

GitHub Thread Replies

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.

The Bottom Line

External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.

Verify. Question. Then implement.

No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.