aibot88 Fresh-Eyes Review
Core Principle
"NO COMMIT WITHOUT FRESH-EYES REVIEW FIRST"
This represents a final quality gate executed after implementation completion, passing tests, and peer review. The discipline applies universally, even without explicit skill activation.
Key Distinctions
Fresh-eyes review differs fundamentally from testing and code review:
| Approach | Focus | Blind Spots |
|---|---|---|
| Testing | Validates expected behavior | Can't test for unknown edge cases |
| Code review | Patterns and quality | Reviewer trusts author's intent |
| Fresh-eyes | Deliberate re-reading with psychological distance | Catches what you thought was correct |
Critical insight: "100% test coverage and passing scenarios" can coexist with "critical bugs" waiting discovery.
Required Process
Step 1 - Announce Commitment
Explicitly declare: "Starting fresh-eyes review of [N] files. This will take 2-5 minutes."
This announcement creates accountability and reframes your mindset from implementation to audit.
Step 2 - Security Vulnerability Checklist
Review all touched files for security issues:
| Vulnerability | What to Check |
|---|---|
| SQL Injection | All database queries use parameterized statements, never string concatenation |
| XSS | All user-provided content is escaped before rendering in HTML |
| Path Traversal | File paths are validated, ../ sequences rejected or normalized |
| Command Injection | Shell commands don't include unsanitized user input |
| IDOR | Resources are access-controlled, not just unguessable IDs |
| Auth Bypass | Every protected endpoint checks authentication and authorization |
Example finding:
// Before: SQL injection vulnerability
const user = await db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`);
// After: Parameterized query
const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [userId]);
Step 3 - Logic Error Checklist
| Error Type | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Off-by-one | Array indices, loop bounds, pagination limits |
| Race conditions | Concurrent access to shared state, async operations |
| Null/undefined | Every . chain could throw; defensive checks present? |
| Type coercion | == vs ===, implicit conversions |
| State mutations | Unexpected side effects on input parameters? |
| Error swallowing | Empty catch blocks, ignored promise rejections |
Example finding:
// Before: Off-by-one in pagination
const hasMore = results.length < pageSize;
// After: Correct boundary
const hasMore = results.length === pageSize;
Step 4 - Business Rule Checklist
| Check | Questions |
|---|---|
| Calculations | Do formulas match requirements exactly? Currency rounding correct? |
| Conditions | AND vs OR logic correct? Negations applied properly? |
| Edge cases | Empty input, single item, maximum values, zero values? |
| Error messages | User-friendly? Leak no sensitive information? |
| Default values | Sensible defaults when optional fields omitted? |
Example finding:
// Before: Tax calculation uses wrong rounding
const tax = price * 0.08;
// After: Proper currency rounding
const tax = Math.round(price * 0.08 * 100) / 100;
Step 5 - Performance Checklist
| Issue | What to Check |
|---|---|
| N+1 queries | Loops that make database calls should be batched |
| Unbounded loops | Maximum iterations, timeout protection |
| Memory leaks | Event listeners removed, streams closed, references cleared |
| Missing indexes | Queries filter/sort on indexed columns? |
| Large payloads | Pagination implemented? Response size bounded? |
Step 6 - Fix Immediately
Address findings before declaring completion:
- Make the fix
- Add test covering the issue (if not present)
- Re-run full test suite
- Re-run linter/type checker
Step 7 - Declare Results
Mandatory announcement:
Fresh-eyes complete. [N] issues found and fixed:
- [Brief description of each issue and fix]
Include this even for zero findings—it proves execution.
Time Commitment
| File Count | Expected Duration |
|---|---|
| 1-3 files | 2 minutes |
| 4-10 files | 3-4 minutes |
| 10+ files | 5 minutes max |
Warning signs:
- Faster than 2 minutes suggests insufficient depth
- More than 5 minutes indicates scope creep—stay focused on the changed code
Resistance Patterns to Reject
The following rationalizations must be explicitly rejected:
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Tests are comprehensive" | Tests validate design, not correctness |
| "I'm confident it's correct" | Confidence is inversely correlated with bugs |
| "Partner is waiting" | 3 minutes now saves 3 hours debugging later |
| "Production is blocked" | Rushing causes the outages being rushed to fix |
| "Senior dev already approved" | They reviewed intent, not implementation details |
| "It's just a small change" | Small changes cause large outages |
These circumstances represent precisely when critical bugs escape into production.
Example Workflow
User: "I'm done implementing the auth feature, let me commit"
Assistant: [Triggers fresh-eyes-review skill]
Starting fresh-eyes review of 4 files. This will take 2-5 minutes.
[Reviews auth.ts for security]
- Found: Missing input validation on email field
- Fixed: Added email format validation
[Reviews handler.ts for logic]
- Found: Off-by-one error in pagination
- Fixed: Changed < to <= in boundary check
[Reviews db.ts for performance]
- No issues found
[Reviews api.ts for business rules]
- No issues found
Re-running tests... All tests pass
Fresh-eyes complete. 2 issues found and fixed.