review

Code Review

Systematically review changes for correctness, security, and maintainability.

Steps

1. Read the full diff. Understand the scope before commenting.
2. Check PR description or commit messages for context — what problem is being solved?
3. Review in priority order:
   • Correctness — Logic errors, off-by-one bugs, missing edge cases, race conditions.
   • Security — Injection risks, hardcoded secrets, missing validation, exposed PII.
   • Error handling — Unhandled failures, swallowed exceptions, missing error paths.
   • Architecture — Does this follow existing patterns? Are boundaries respected?
   • Testing — Are new behaviors tested? Are error paths covered?
   • Naming & clarity — Would a new team member understand this?
4. For each issue:
   • Point to the exact file and line.
   • Explain why it's a problem, not just what to change.
   • Suggest a fix when possible.
   • Mark as blocking (must fix) or suggestion (nice to have).
5. When the code is solid, say so plainly. Manufactured criticism erodes review trust.

Output Format

## Summary
[1-2 sentence overview]

## Issues
- **[blocking]** file.ts:42 — [problem and suggested fix]
- **[suggestion]** file.ts:15 — [observation and reasoning]

## Verdict
[Approve / Request changes / Needs discussion]

Gotchas

• Skip style nitpicks that a formatter or linter would catch — those are noise.
• Review what's there, not what you would have written. The author's approach stands unless it has a concrete flaw.
• Resolve every blocking issue before approving — politeness is not a reason to ship a known bug.
• Check the full PR, not just the latest commit — bugs often hide in earlier commits.