| name | avoiding-false-positives |
| description | Use this skill to validate findings during a code review. For each finding, run the rejection criteria and verification checks. If a finding fails any check, drop it. |
Validating Findings
Rejection Criteria
A finding is a false positive — drop it — if ANY of the following are true:
- Pre-existing — code existed before this PR and was not modified by this change
- Not actually buggy — appears wrong but is correct (e.g., variable IS defined, logic DOES produce correct results)
- Pedantic nitpick — a senior engineer would not flag this in a real review
- Linter-catchable — a linter or type checker will catch this; do not duplicate their work
- Generic concern — "lacks test coverage", "general security issue" without a specific, traceable problem
- Explicitly silenced — lint ignore comments, pragma suppressions, or documented exceptions
- Handled elsewhere — error boundaries, middleware, validators, or framework guarantees make the issue moot
Verification Checks
For each finding that passes rejection criteria, verify ALL three:
- Can you trace the execution path showing incorrect behavior?
- Is this handled elsewhere (error boundaries, middleware, validators)?
- Are you certain about framework behavior, API contracts, and language semantics?
If you cannot confidently answer all three, drop the finding.
Patterns to Recognize (DO NOT flag)
- Intentional simplicity - Not every function needs error handling if caller handles it
- Framework conventions - React hooks, dependency injection, ORM patterns have specific rules
- Test code - Different standards apply (hardcoded values, no error handling often OK)
- Generated code - Migrations, API clients, proto files (only review if hand-edited)
- Copied patterns - If code matches existing patterns in codebase, consistency > "better" approach
- Automated dependency updates - Renovate/Dependabot minor/patch updates to existing dependencies with passing CI are routine Stage 5 monitoring
- Lock file regeneration - A single manifest change can produce thousands of lock file diff lines; this is normal and not a review concern
When uncertain about a pattern, search the codebase for similar examples before flagging.
Codebase Conventions
- Check existing patterns - How does this codebase handle similar cases?
- Respect established conventions - Even if non-standard, consistency > perfection
- Don't flag convention violations unless they cause bugs or security issues
Examples:
- Codebase uses
any types extensively → Don't flag individual uses
- Codebase has no error handling in services → Don't flag one missing try-catch
- Consistency matters more than isolated improvements
Common False Positives
Do NOT flag when handled elsewhere or guaranteed by framework:
- Null checks: Language/framework ensures non-null, or prior validation occurred
- Error handling: Error boundaries exist, function designed to throw, or caller handles
- Race conditions: Framework synchronizes (React state, DB transactions), or operations idempotent
- Performance: Data bounded (<100 items), runs once at startup, no profiling evidence
- Security: Framework sanitizes (parameterized queries, JSX escaping), or API layer validates
- Lock file churn: Large lock file diffs from a single manifest change are expected behavior, not a review concern
When uncertain, assume the developer knows something you don't.
