| name | code-review |
| description | Use after implementation to review code against spec and quality standards |
Code Review
Review implementation against spec and quality standards. Catch issues before they cascade.
Review Process
1. Understand Context
- What was the task/bead requirement?
- What commits are being reviewed?
- What's the expected behavior?
2. Spec Compliance Review
Check that implementation matches requirements:
Must verify:
Red flags:
- "I added X because it seemed useful" - reject
- Missing required functionality - reject
- Behavior differs from spec - reject
3. Code Quality Review
Check for:
Severity levels:
- Critical - Must fix before proceeding (bugs, security, broken tests)
- Important - Should fix before proceeding (missing tests, poor structure)
- Minor - Can note for later (style, minor improvements)
4. Provide Feedback
Structure your review:
## Spec Compliance
[✅ Compliant / ❌ Issues found]
Issues (if any):
- Missing: [what's missing from spec]
- Extra: [what was added but not requested]
## Code Quality
Strengths:
- [What's done well]
Issues:
- [Critical] [issue description]
- [Important] [issue description]
- [Minor] [issue description]
## Assessment
[Ready to proceed / Needs fixes]
Acting on Feedback
If reviewer finds issues:
- Implementer fixes the issues
- Reviewer reviews again
- Repeat until approved
If you disagree with feedback:
- Push back with technical reasoning
- Show code/tests that prove correctness
- Request clarification if unclear
Red Flags
Never:
- Skip review because "it's simple"
- Ignore Critical issues
- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
- Rubber-stamp without actually reviewing
Always:
- Check spec compliance first
- Run the tests yourself
- Verify claimed fixes actually work
