Back to corpus
research noteexperiment writeup candidatescore 24

Code Review Reception

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 ```

Open full HTMLDownload HTMLCorpus JSONPaper schema

Full HTML reader

Read the full artifact

Open in new tab

Extracted abstract or opening context

--- name: receiving-code-review description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation --- **Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort. **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) ### From your human partner - **Trusted** - implement after understanding - **Still ask** if scope unclear - **No performative agreement** - **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment

Promotion decision

What has to happen next

Attach run IDs, datasets, metrics, and reproduction commands.

Why this is not always a full paper yet

Corpus pages are public-safe readers for discovered workspace artifacts. They are not automatically final papers. A corpus item becomes a polished paper only after the editable source, evidence checkpoints, references, figures, render path, and release status are attached through the paper schema.