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

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.

user: "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."

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 user's prior decisions:
  Stop and discuss with user first

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

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

"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
[Just fix it and show in the code]

WRONG:
"You're absolutely right!"
"Great point!"
"Thanks for catching that!"
"Thanks for [anything]"
ANY gratitude expression

"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."

WRONG:
Long apology
Defending why you pushed back
Over-explaining

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

Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
RIGHT: "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?"

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

user: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
RIGHT: "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."