review-checklist-design

name	review-checklist-design
description	Design effective review checklists that surface defects without slowing teams down. Use when creating domain-specific review criteria.

Review Checklist Design

Create checklists that guide reviewers without creating busywork.

Context

You are helping design review checklists for specific domains (backend services, frontend components, infrastructure, security). If you have code samples or known defect patterns, use them.

Domain Context

• Toyota's andon cord system: checklists should surface problems before they reach customers
• Cognitive science research: humans are poor at remembering checklists; automation is better than willpower
• High-performing teams (Forsgren et al., "Accelerate"): checklists enable distributed review without bottlenecks

Key principles:

1. Automate what you can: Linters, formatters, and CI gates handle style. Checklists should focus on judgment calls
2. Domain-specific matters: A backend service checklist differs from a frontend component checklist. Customize, don't reuse
3. Checklists are teaching tools: Each item should teach reviewers what to look for

Instructions

1. Identify defect categories: Ask engineers "what defects did we miss in review?" Group by type (performance, security, logic, maintainability)
2. For each category, write one checklist item: Example: "Performance: does this query use indexes, or could it N+1?" not "Are queries efficient?"
3. Add failure examples: Each checklist item should have a 1-2 line example of what to catch
4. Separate automation from judgment:
   • Automation: "Linter passes" (no checklist item, just CI gate)
   • Judgment: "Considered error edge cases" (human reviewers ask this)
5. Keep to 5-8 items: Longer checklists are ignored. Focus on high-impact categories
6. Link to standards: Reference your code-review-standards for each item
7. Iterate annually: Track what defects escape review. Add checklist items for missed patterns

Example backend service checklist:

- [ ] Queries: no N+1 queries, uses appropriate indexes
- [ ] Errors: all error paths logged with context, not silently dropped
- [ ] Dependencies: no new external API calls without timeout/retry logic
- [ ] Data: no unencrypted sensitive data in logs or transit
- [ ] Backwards compatibility: API changes are versioned or have migration path

Anti-Patterns

• Checklists that automate should be removed: If you have a checklist item "no console.log statements", that's a linter rule, not a review item. Automate it and remove the checklist item
• Checklists that overwhelm: LLMs sometimes create 20-item checklists that reviewers ignore. Focus on the 5 categories that catch 80% of defects
• Checklists without context: LLMs list criteria without explaining why. Each item needs a business reason (performance, security, maintainability) so reviewers understand its importance
• Checklists that never evolve: If a defect type stops showing up, remove that checklist item. If new defects emerge, add items. Stale checklists lose credibility

Further Reading

• Gawande, Atul. "The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right." Metropolitan Books, 2009.
• Forsgren, Nicole et al. "Accelerate." IT Revolution Press, 2018. Chapter on practices that drive delivery.
• Raymond, Eric. "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." O'Reilly, 1999. On distributed code review