code-review-preferences

<essential_principles>

Code Review Philosophy

Reviews exist to:

1. Catch bugs before production
2. Share knowledge across the team
3. Maintain consistency in the codebase

Reviews do NOT exist to:

• Show off knowledge
• Enforce personal style preferences
• Block progress unnecessarily

The 3-Pass Method

Pass 1: Understand (don't comment yet)

• What is this change trying to do?
• What files are affected?
• What's the scope?

Pass 2: Correctness

• Are there bugs?
• Are edge cases handled?
• Are there security issues?

Pass 3: Improvements (max 5 comments)

• Is it readable?
• Is it maintainable?
• Are there better patterns?

Review Standards

Must Check

• [ ] Tests pass
• [ ] No obvious bugs
• [ ] Edge cases from PR description handled
• [ ] No security vulnerabilities
• [ ] No secrets in code

Should Check

• [ ] Code is readable
• [ ] Functions are reasonably sized (<50 lines)
• [ ] Names are clear and descriptive
• [ ] Error messages are helpful

Nice to Check

• [ ] Performance considerations
• [ ] Documentation updated
• [ ] Consistent with existing patterns

Feedback Style

DO:

• Ask questions: "What happens if X is null?"
• Be specific: "Line 42: Consider using a guard clause"
• Acknowledge good work: "Nice refactor here"
• Limit comments: Max 5 per review

DON'T:

• Dictate: "You must do X"
• Be vague: "This could be better"
• Nitpick style: "I prefer single quotes"
• Pile on: 20 comments is overwhelming

</essential_principles>

<intake> What would you like me to review?

1. Format
2. Paste the code/diff here
3. Reference a file with @filename
4. Describe the PR and I'll ask questions

1. Context
2. Bug fix
3. New feature
4. Refactor
5. Performance optimization
6. Other: ___

1. Specific concerns?

(Security, performance, breaking changes, etc.)

I'll wait for your answers before starting the review. </intake>