Skip to content

Decision 006: Review Protocol for Code Reviews

Date: 2026-02-03 Status: Accepted

Context

The repo includes a review skill, but it was missing “default code review” guidance and wasn’t listed alongside other skills in the workflow-stage navigation (README.md, PROMPTS.md, Spec 003).

For real code reviews (especially PR/diff reviews), reviewers also need:

  • A “general” mode (not a single-axis audit like security-only)
  • A way to make findings easy to locate even when line numbers drift (e.g., rebases)
  • Clearer severity calibration so non-security findings aren’t over/under-weighted

Decision

  • Treat review as a code review skill and list it under Verify in README.md, PROMPTS.md, and Spec 003.
  • Add general and correctness review types.
  • Recommend an “Anchor” field (symbol/snippet) alongside file+line evidence to keep findings locatable across diffs.
  • Add brief severity calibration guidance tuned for code review usage.
  • Cross-link review types to existing skills for deeper checklists (avoid duplicating guidance).

Consequences

  • Easier discovery and consistent taxonomy/navigation across repo docs.
  • More useful defaults for everyday PR reviews (general) while preserving focused audits.
  • Slight format expansion (recommended Anchor line) that reviewers should enforce consistently if they choose to use it.