Review

Code Review with Confidence Filtering

Overview

Review code thoroughly but only report issues you're confident about. Filter out noise - stylistic preferences and uncertain concerns don't belong in reviews. Focus on bugs, security issues, and clear violations.

Core principle: Only report issues with >= 80% confidence.

Announce at start: "I'm using the review skill to review this code."

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After completing a feature
• Before merging to main
• After fixing complex bugs

Optional but valuable:

• When stuck (fresh perspective helps)
• Before major refactoring
• After implementing unfamiliar patterns

The Review Process

Step 1: Gather Context

Get the diff:

BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base HEAD main)  # or specific commit
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
git diff $BASE_SHA..$HEAD_SHA

Check existing patterns:

kodo query "code style"      # Project conventions
kodo query "error handling"  # Error patterns used

Step 2: Review for Issues

Priority categories:

DO report (>= 80% confidence):

• Clear bugs with specific line numbers
• Obvious security issues
• Missing error handling that will cause failures
• Logic errors you can prove with example input

DO NOT report (< 80% confidence):

• Stylistic preferences ("I would have done X")
• Uncertain concerns ("This might cause issues")
• Opinions without evidence
• Things that "feel wrong" but you can't explain why

Step 3: Document Findings

Report format:

## Code Review: [Feature/PR Name]

**Commits reviewed:** `BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA`
**Files changed:** X files, +Y/-Z lines

### Strengths
- [What's done well - acknowledge good work]

### Issues

#### Critical: [Title] (Confidence: XX%)
**File:** `path/to/file.rs:42`
**Problem:** [Specific description]
**Evidence:** [Why you're confident this is wrong]
**Fix:**
```rust
// Suggested fix

Important: [Title] (Confidence: XX%)

...

Assessment

[ ] APPROVE - Ready to merge [ ] REQUEST CHANGES - Fix critical/important issues first

### Step 4: Handle Feedback

**If reviewer feedback is disputed:**
- Push back with technical reasoning
- Show code or tests that prove it works
- Ask for clarification on vague feedback

**If you're the reviewer and author disagrees:**
- Listen to their reasoning
- Verify your concern is valid (>= 80% confidence)
- Accept that you might be wrong

## Integration with Kodo

**Capture review insights:**
```bash
kodo reflect --signal "Found common bug pattern: missing null check in X"
kodo reflect --signal "Project uses Y pattern for error handling"

Check if similar issues were caught before:

kodo query "review bugs"     # Past review findings
kodo query "common mistakes" # Known pitfalls

Confidence Calibration

90%+ confidence means:

• You can explain exactly why it's wrong
• You can show an input that triggers the bug
• The issue violates documented requirements

80%+ confidence means:

• You're fairly certain but can't prove it
• The code contradicts established patterns
• The behavior is clearly unintended

< 80% means:

• Don't report it
• Or preface with "Question:" not "Issue:"

Key Principles

• High confidence only - Filter noise, report signal
• Be specific - Line numbers, exact problems, concrete fixes
• Acknowledge strengths - Reviews aren't just criticism
• Push back respectfully - If reviewer is wrong, say so with evidence
• Learn from reviews - Capture patterns with kodo reflect

Red Flags

You're doing it wrong if:

• Reporting "I would have done it differently"
• No line numbers or specific locations
• Confidence below 80% on reported issues
• Only criticism, no acknowledgment of strengths
• Accepting invalid feedback without pushback
• Not capturing insights for future sessions