From 5078d4e7875db5cce7c46e78d5f90462fa73c7fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ed_ Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2026 13:28:23 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?conductor(track):=20superpowers=20review=20sect?= =?UTF-8?q?ion=2010=20=E2=80=94=20receiving-code-review=20(medium)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- .../superpowers_review_20260619/report.md | 70 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/report.md b/conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/report.md index c678de8d..ef9dbaa8 100644 --- a/conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/report.md +++ b/conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/report.md @@ -587,7 +587,75 @@ The project follows the skill's principles (stateless subagents, focused tasks, ## 10. Receiving Code Review - +## 10. Receiving Code Review + +### 10.1 What the skill prescribes + +The `receiving-code-review` skill establishes that "Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance." Core principle: "Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort." The Response Pattern is 6-step: READ (complete feedback without reacting) → UNDERSTAND (restate requirement in own words or ask) → VERIFY (check against codebase reality) → EVALUATE (technically sound for THIS codebase?) → RESPOND (technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback) → IMPLEMENT (one item at a time, test each). + +The Forbidden Responses are explicit: NEVER "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation); NEVER "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative); NEVER "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). + +The Handling Unclear Feedback rule: IF any item is unclear → STOP → ASK for clarification on unclear items. WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation. Example: Partner says "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." + +The Source-Specific Handling distinguishes: From your human partner (Trusted — implement after understanding; still ask if scope unclear; no performative agreement; skip to action or technical acknowledgment) vs From External Reviewers (5-step pre-implementation check: technically correct for THIS codebase? breaks existing functionality? reason for current implementation? works on all platforms/versions? does reviewer understand full context?). + +The 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. + +The Implementation Order is: Blocking issues (breaks, security) → Simple fixes (typos, imports) → Complex fixes (refactoring, logic) → Test each fix individually → Verify no regressions. + +The Acknowledging Correct Feedback rule: "Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback." NEVER "Thanks" or gratitude expressions. State the fix instead. + +The Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback rule: "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." NEVER Long apology / defending why you pushed back / over-explaining. + +### 10.2 Mapping to the project's existing pattern + +The project doesn't have a dedicated "receiving code review" rule, but it has multiple patterns that map to the skill. The project is mostly self-directed (Tier 2 reviews Tier 3's commits via per-task git notes; the user reviews at phase boundaries), so the "receiving code review" pattern is invoked when the user gives feedback at phase checkpoints. + +| Skill rule | Project equivalent | Where | +|---|---|---| +| "Verify before implementing" | The Phase Completion Verification and Checkpointing Protocol: "PAUSE and await the user's response. Do not proceed without an explicit yes or confirmation from the user to proceed if tests pass." | `conductor/workflow.md` §"Phase Completion Verification" | +| "No performative agreement" | The project's communication style is neutral-technical; AGENTS.md uses imperative language; "Satisfaction before verification" red flag is the inverse | Project-wide | +| "Restate the technical requirement" | The Tier-1 orchestrator's "Ask clarifying questions, one at a time" pattern (per Section 2) is the inverse: restating is what the agent does after receiving feedback | `conductor/workflow.md` §"Planning Session Workflow" | +| "Just start working (actions > words)" | The project's per-task atomic commit + git note discipline: "Actions speak." The verb in every commit message is the action. | `conductor/workflow.md` §"Task Workflow" step 9 | +| "NEVER 'Thanks' or gratitude expressions" | The project's commit message style is terse: "conductor(track): ...", "feat(...): ...", no "Thanks" / "Great!" / "Awesome!" | `conductor/workflow.md` | +| "Source-Specific Handling: from human partner" | The user (project owner) is the sole reviewer; the Tier-2 → user feedback loop is the closest equivalent to the skill's "from human partner" path | `conductor/workflow.md` §"Phase Completion Verification" | +| "YAGNI Check: grep codebase for actual usage" | The Tier-1 Track Initialization Rules §1 "Spec format" + §2 "Frame requirements as GAPS, not features" — the project's spec-first approach surfaces YAGNI before code, not after review | `conductor/workflow.md` §"Tier 1 Track Initialization Rules" | +| "Implementation Order: blocking → simple → complex" | The Per-Task Decision Protocol: "small decisions, decide yourself. Large decisions, escalate." Maps to skill's order. | `conductor/workflow.md` §"Per-Task Decision Protocol" | +| "Push back with technical reasoning if wrong" | The Report-Instead-of-Fix Pattern (kill it): "A status report is allowed only when: You have actually tried the fix and it failed with evidence, OR You are blocked on a decision the user must make." | `AGENTS.md` §"Process Anti-Patterns" §2 | +| "Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback: State the correction factually and move on" | The Verbose-Commit-Message Pattern (kill it): "A commit message is a 1-3 sentence summary. The body is for non-obvious 'why' details, not for re-stating what the diff shows." | `AGENTS.md` §"Process Anti-Patterns" §7 | + +### 10.3 Where the project already follows the discipline + +- **The neutral commit message style** is skill-compliant. The project's commits are `conductor(scope): ` with terse descriptions; no "Thanks" / "Great!" / "Awesome!" patterns. The Verbose-Commit-Message rule enforces this. +- **The Phase Completion Verification protocol's "PAUSE and await the user's response"** is the project's "ask before assuming" pattern. The agent doesn't proceed without explicit user confirmation. +- **The Report-Instead-of-Fix rule** is the project's "push back with technical reasoning" rule. The agent is allowed to surface a concern to the user (status report) when blocked. +- **The Tier-1 spec-first approach** is the inverse of the skill's "review feedback may include 'implement this feature'": the project surfaces YAGNI before code via the spec, not after. + +### 10.4 Where the project doesn't follow the discipline + +- **No explicit "no performative agreement" rule.** The project implicitly has this via the neutral commit message style, but no AGENTS.md rule says "Never respond to feedback with 'Great point!' or 'Thanks!'". This is a soft gap. +- **No explicit "restate the requirement before implementing" rule.** The Tier-1 spec-first pattern is upstream of this; the Tier-3 worker is given a surgical prompt and implements. There's no "restate the WHOLE task before starting" step. +- **"NEVER thanks" rule** is implicit but not explicit. A new agent reading AGENTS.md might not know this discipline. +- **No explicit "5-step pre-implementation check" for external reviewers.** The project doesn't have external reviewers; the user is the sole reviewer. This rule doesn't apply. + +### 10.5 Recommendations summary + +The project follows the discipline implicitly via its neutral communication style and Phase Completion Verification protocol. The deferred rebuild may want to: + +- **LOW:** Add an explicit "no performative agreement / no thanks" rule to AGENTS.md §"Communication Style" or a new "Communication Conventions" section. The implicit discipline is captured in commit messages but not codified. + +**Verdict.** + +| Field | Value | +|---|---| +| **Primary** | `PARITY` | +| **Integration tag** | `INTEGRATED` | +| **Section size** | medium | +| **Cross-refs** | nagent_review_20260608 §3 ("durable work" thesis shapes review feedback); fable_review_20260617 §13 ("Genuinely Useful Patterns" includes neutral communication); intent_dsl_survey_20260612 §6 (the project's neutral style is documented) | + +**Rationale.** The project's neutral communication style + Phase Completion Verification protocol + Verbose-Commit-Message rule + Report-Instead-of-Fix pattern is a faithful (if implicit) re-encoding of the skill. The "no performative agreement" rule is captured in commit style but not codified. + +**Recommended change.** Add explicit "no performative agreement / no thanks" rule to AGENTS.md or new "Communication Conventions" section. ## 11. Requesting Code Review