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

   • Paste the code/diff here
   • Reference a file with @filename
   • Describe the PR and I'll ask questions

2. Context

   • Bug fix
   • New feature
   • Refactor
   • Performance optimization
   • Other: ___

3. Specific concerns? (Security, performance, breaking changes, etc.)

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