multi-reviewer-patterns

# Multi-Reviewer Patterns Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports. ## When to Use This Skill - Organizing a multi-dimensional code review - Deciding which review dimensions to assign - Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers - Calibrating severity ratings consistently - Producing a consolidated review report ## Review Dimension Allocation ### Available Dimensions | Dimension | Focus | When to Include | | ----------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | **Security** | Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation | Always for code handling user input or auth | | **Performance** | Query efficiency, memory, caching | When changing data access or hot paths | | **Architecture** | SOLID, coupling, patterns | For structural changes or new modules | | **Testing** | Coverage, quality, edge cases | When adding new functionality | | **Accessibility** | WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav | For UI/frontend changes | ### Recommended Combinations | Scenario | Dimensions | | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | | API endpoint changes | Security, Performance, Architecture | | Frontend component | Architecture, Testing, Accessibility | | Database migration | Performance, Architecture | | Authentication changes | Security, Testing | | Full feature review | Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing | ## Finding Deduplication When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location: ### Merge Rules 1. **Same file:line, same issue** — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers 2. **Same file:line, different issues** — Keep as separate findings 3. **Same issue, different locations** — Keep separate but cross-reference 4. **Conflicting severity** — Use the higher severity rating 5. **Conflicting recommendations** — Include both with reviewer attribution ### Deduplication Process ``` For each finding in all reviewer reports: 1. Check if another finding references the same file:line 2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue 3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description 4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located" 5. Use highest severity among merged findings ``` ## Severity Calibration ### Severity Criteria | Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Examples | | ------------ | --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | | **Critical** | Data loss, security breach, complete failure | Certain or very likely | SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption | | **High** | Significant functionality impact, degradation | Likely | Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow | | **Medium** | Partial impact, workaround exists | Possible | N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error | | **Low** | Minimal impact, cosmetic | Unlikely | Style issue, minor optimization, naming | ### Calibration Rules - Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High - Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium - Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium - Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium - Code style issues with no functional impact: Low ## Consolidated Report Template ```markdown ## Code Review Report **Target**: {files/PR/directory} **Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3} **Date**: {date} **Files Reviewed**: {count} ### Critical Findings ({count}) #### [CR-001] {Title} **Location**: `{file}:{line}` **Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.} **Description**: {what was found} **Impact**: {what could happen} **Fix**: {recommended remediation} ### High Findings ({count}) ... ### Medium Findings ({count}) ... ### Low Findings ({count}) ... ### Summary | Dimension | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Total | | ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ | | Security | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6 | | Performance | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | | Architecture | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | | **Total** | **1** | **3** | **9** | **5** | **18** | ### Recommendation {Overall assessment and prioritized action items} ```