tdwhere123 Review
Keep two lenses distinct: Spec asks whether the implementation satisfies the user's requirements, settled decisions, boundaries, and acceptance; Standards asks whether its ownership, contracts, failure behavior, and maintainability are sound. Passing either lens does not close a failure in the other.
Inspect the actual diff, callers, and relevant evidence. An independent context is valuable when the author or parent may be anchored: give the reviewer the goal, scope, decisions, and source facts, not an authoritative parent verdict. Let the reviewer gather evidence and reach their own conclusion.
Collect the complete finding batch before causal repairs when findings may share a root. Cluster related failures, repair the rightful owner, and check the repair's affected surface. Re-review depth follows new changes, remaining doubt, and risk; no fixed number of reviewers or repair rounds applies.
A useful finding identifies its location, consequence, evidence, and needed correction. Distinguish blocking defects, important regressions, and optional improvements. Do not claim clean while material findings remain unresolved; identify anything not checked or deliberately deferred. Use the user's review vocabulary when one is specified.
Review lenses provide optional specialist detail.