code-review

When running a code review, follow the process outlined here. ## Project Context - git installed: !`which git 2>/dev/null || echo "not installed"` - CLAUDE.md: !`find . -maxdepth 1 -name "CLAUDE.md" -type f` - project-discovery.md: !`find . -maxdepth 3 -name "project-discovery.md" -type f` ## Review Constraints Severity levels: - **Critical** — Must fix before merge. Security vulnerabilities, data corruption risk, breaking API changes, data isolation failures. - **Warning** — Should fix. Bugs that don't corrupt data, significant performance issues, missing required tests, missing error handling. - **Suggestion** — Consider improving. Style improvements, optional performance gains, documentation gaps, refactoring opportunities. Severity calibration is governed by **Step 3.3** (the authoritative home for size-based demotion). Manual findings from Steps 4 to 6 follow the same size-based rules as agent findings classified at Step 7: Small changes escalate only Critical findings and default uncertain ones to the lower severity, Medium changes escalate Critical and Warning, Large changes prefer the higher severity when in doubt. Read `{size}` from Step 3.1. Include `file_path:line_number` references and code examples for suggested fixes. **Finding caps:** Manual review findings (Steps 4-6) and agent findings (Step 7) are each capped at 30 items. Prioritize by severity: all CRIT first, then WARN, then SUGG. If either cap is exceeded, note that additional items were omitted and...