Code Review Communication

This skill provides frameworks for effective code review communication - both giving feedback that lands well and receiving feedback without defensiveness.

When to Use This Skill

• Writing a code review comment and want it to be clear and constructive

• Receiving feedback that feels harsh and need perspective

• Want to distinguish between blocking issues and minor suggestions

• Need to communicate code quality concerns without damaging relationships

• Preparing to review a junior developer's first PR

Core Frameworks

Conventional Comments

A labeling system that makes the intent of each comment crystal clear.

Format: [label] (decoration): explanation

Labels:

Label Meaning Action Required

praise

Highlight good work None - encouragement

nitpick

Minor style/preference issue Optional

suggestion

Improvement idea Consider but not required

issue

Must be addressed Required before merge

question

Need clarification Response required

thought

Sharing perspective None - FYI only

Decorations:

• (non-blocking)

• Explicitly optional

• (blocking)

• Must be resolved

• (if-minor)

• Only if the fix is trivial

Examples:

praise: This error handling is really thorough - I like how you covered the edge cases.

nitpick (non-blocking): Consider using a more descriptive variable name than x.

suggestion: You could use Object.entries() here for cleaner iteration.

issue (blocking): This SQL query is vulnerable to injection. Use parameterized queries.

question: What's the expected behavior if the user cancels mid-operation?

thought: I've seen this pattern cause issues with concurrent requests in the past.

Full reference: references/conventional-comments.md

Summary-Analysis-Suggestion Method

For larger reviews or when multiple comments are needed:

• Summary - Start with what works (genuine positives)

• Analysis - Identify specific areas needing attention

• Suggestion - End with actionable recommendations

This prevents the "wall of criticism" effect that makes authors defensive.

Separating Code from Coder

The most important principle: criticize code, not people.

Instead of... Say...

"You wrote this wrong" "This function could be simplified"

"You didn't think about X" "There's an edge case here around X"

"Why did you do it this way?" "What's the reasoning behind this approach?"

"You should know better" "This is a common gotcha - here's the pattern"

Use collaborative "we" language:

• "We should add a test for this"

• "How should we handle the null case?"

• "Let's think about the performance implications"

Blocking vs Non-Blocking

Blocking issues (must fix):

• Security vulnerabilities

• Bugs that will cause production issues

• Breaking changes to public APIs

• Missing required tests for critical paths

Non-blocking issues (nice to have):

• Style preferences

• Alternative implementations

• Minor optimizations

• Documentation improvements

Rule of thumb: If you'd be comfortable if the author ignored this comment, it's non-blocking.

Receiving Feedback

Receiving code review feedback well is equally important. See references/receiving-feedback.md for:

• Assuming good intent

• Separating ego from code

• Asking clarifying questions

• Handling disagreements professionally

• When to take discussions offline

Related Resources

• references/conventional-comments.md

• Full label taxonomy with examples

• references/receiving-feedback.md

• Guide to receiving feedback gracefully

• feedback-conversations skill - For broader feedback (not just code)

• /soft-skills:review-comment command - Generate a well-structured review comment

Version History

• v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release

Last Updated

Date: 2025-12-26 Model: claude-opus-4-5-20251101