zap-coding-agent Caveman Review
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Format
L<line>: <problem>. <fix>.
Multi-file: <file>:L<line>: <problem>. <fix>.
Severity prefix (when mixed):
🔴 bug:— broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk:— works but fragile (race condition, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit:— style, naming, micro-optimisation — author can ignore❓ q:— genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe") — if unsure use
❓ q: - "Great work!" per comment — say it once at the top if warranted
- Trailing "let me know if you have questions"
Example Output
L42: 🔴 bug: `user.role` read before null check. Move null check above L38.
L67: 🟡 risk: `parseInt` without radix. Use `parseInt(s, 10)`.
L89: 🔵 nit: `getData` → `fetchOrders` — name the domain concept.
L103: ❓ q: Why `setTimeout(fn, 0)` here — deferring for a reason?
REQUIRED COMPANION: caveman — base compressed-response mode. caveman-commit — same philosophy for commit messages.