code-reviewlisted

# Code Review ## Two-Stage Review Process ### Stage 1: Spec Compliance Before assessing quality, verify the code does what was asked: 1. **Compare implementation against the spec/plan** — requirement by requirement 2. **Is anything missing?** — features specified but not implemented 3. **Is anything extra?** — features added that weren't requested (YAGNI violation — remove them) 4. **Are deviations justified?** — if the implementation differs from the plan, is it a genuine improvement or a problematic departure? **If spec compliance fails:** Fix gaps before moving to Stage 2. Don't review quality of incomplete work. ### Stage 2: Code Quality 1. **Error handling** — are errors caught, logged, and handled appropriately? Are edge cases covered? 2. **Type safety** — proper types, no `any` unless justified, interfaces match contracts 3. **Naming** — clear, descriptive, consistent with codebase conventions 4. **Organization** — separation of concerns, single responsibility, loose coupling 5. **Test coverage** — are tests meaningful? Do they test behavior, not implementation? 6. **Security** — input validation, no hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS 7. **Performance** — obvious N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, missing indexes ### Issue Categories - **Critical** (must fix) — blocks merge, breaks functionality, security vulnerability - **Important** (should fix) — code smell, missing edge case, poor naming, missing test - **Suggestion** (nice to have) — style preference