TheHalfMoon Diffcipline Review
Review the exact diff, not the author's narrative.
Review order
- Correct target — does the change address the actual root cause and requested behavior?
- Scope — does every changed file have a direct reason?
- Need — was existing code, stdlib, native platform behavior, or an installed dependency ignored?
- Complexity — are there speculative abstractions, configuration, wrappers, or dependencies?
- Risk — is the verification level strong enough for the touched boundary?
- Proof — what actually ran, and what remains unverified?
Finding format
Use concise findings with evidence:
<file>:<line/range> [scope|need|complexity|risk|proof] <problem>. <smallest correct remedy>.
Do not flag security controls, trust-boundary validation, accessibility, data-integrity handling, or explicit requirements merely because removing them would shrink the diff.
Finish with one verdict:
PASS — scope and proof are sufficient.REVIEW — no hard failure, but evidence or judgment is incomplete.FAIL — a correctness/policy/verification requirement failed.