requesting-code-review

name	requesting-code-review
description	Structured code review workflow for SRTD development. Use after implementing features, fixing bugs, or before merging to main. Ensures production-readiness through systematic review.

Requesting Code Review

Review early, review often. Catch issues before they compound across multiple changes.

When to Request Review

Mandatory

• After completing a feature or bug fix
• Before merging to main
• After significant refactoring
• When security-sensitive code is modified

Optional (But Recommended)

• When stuck on a design decision
• After complex debugging sessions
• Before deleting or deprecating code

How to Request Review

Step 1: Identify the Change Range

# Get the commits to review
git log --oneline main..HEAD

# Or specific commit range
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base main HEAD)
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)

Step 2: Dispatch the Code Reviewer

Use the code-reviewer reference to conduct the review:

Review the changes from ${BASE_SHA} to ${HEAD_SHA}.

What was implemented: [brief description]
Requirements: [link to issue or spec]

See: .claude/skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

Step 3: Address Feedback by Severity

Severity	Action Required
Critical	STOP. Fix immediately before any other work.
Important	Fix before merging or proceeding to next task.
Minor	Note for later. Can merge with these outstanding.

Responding to Feedback

When You Agree

Fix the issue, then request re-review of the fix.

When You Disagree

You may push back IF you have:

1. Technical justification (not just preference)
2. Evidence (code, tests, benchmarks)
3. Clear explanation of trade-offs

Example: "I kept the nested structure because flattening would require N+1 queries. See benchmark in test/perf/nested-vs-flat.ts showing 3x slowdown."

SRTD-Specific Review Focus

When reviewing SRTD code, pay extra attention to:

Service Boundaries

• Is state mutation only in StateService?
• Is file I/O only in FileSystemService?
• Is database access only in DatabaseService?

State Machine Integrity

• Are template states transitioning correctly? (UNSEEN → CHANGED → APPLIED/BUILT → SYNCED)
• Is hash comparison working correctly?

Build Log Handling

• Are both .buildlog.json and .buildlog.local.json updated appropriately?
• Is the distinction maintained? (built vs applied)

Error Handling

• Are database errors properly categorized?
• Is retry logic correct (3 attempts, exponential backoff)?
• Are advisory locks used for concurrent access?

Anti-Patterns (Red Flags)

• "This change is too simple to review" → Simple changes break production
• "I'll fix that in a follow-up" for Critical/Important issues → Fix now
• Ignoring review feedback without justification → Explain or fix
• Reviewing your own code without fresh eyes → Request external review

Integration with Development Flow

After Each Task

Request review before marking task complete.

Before PR Creation

Run full review to catch issues before they're public.

After CI Feedback

Re-review if CI reveals issues not caught initially.