In code reviews, I handle critique by clearly articulating the reasoning behind my technical decisions, ensuring I explain my logic and the benefits of my approach in detail. I support my arguments with data or relevant precedents, which provides concrete evidence for the effectiveness of my solution. At the same time, I remain open to feedback and alternative perspectives, valuing the collaborative nature of code reviews.

In my experience, when my technical decisions are questioned during a code review, I approach the situation with a blend of confidence and openness. I begin by explaining the rationale behind my choices, drawing on specific examples and results from past projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of my methods. I emphasize the thought process and the outcomes achieved, which often helps in illustrating the practical benefits of my approach. At the same time, I actively listen to feedback and alternative suggestions. This not only shows respect for my colleagues’ expertise but also opens the door to potential improvements that could enhance the project.

In a code review, I would listen to feedback calmly and explain the reasoning behind my choices, focusing on design trade-offs, performance, and maintainability. I’d provide data or examples to support my decisions and acknowledge alternative approaches, emphasizing how my solution aligns with the project’s goals. This approach shows openness while confidently defending my expertise.

Code reviews are about growth, not just finding faults. Be open to feedback, but don't be afraid to explain your reasoning. Back up your choices with data or examples when you can. The goal is better code, not winning arguments. Keep it professional, stay curious about other perspectives, and remember - we're all here to learn and improve together.