Code Review

Review is the inverse of editing: instead of producing a change, the agent evaluates one. The same four-layer model applies, which is what separates useful review from restating a style guide.

What is actually checked#

Linters already catch formatting and a long tail of local mistakes. There is no value in an agent duplicating them. Review is scoped to the classes of defect that require understanding the repository as a whole.

Conventions are derived, not configured#

Rather than asking a team to write down its conventions, the reviewer infers them from the repository and states them as observations with a confidence level. A pattern followed in forty of forty-two comparable sites is a convention; one followed in nine of twenty is not, and is not reported.

finding    convention divergence          confidence  high
location   billing/invoice.ts  ·  createInvoice

  This module's 11 other write paths wrap their database
  calls in withTransaction(). This one does not.

  comparable sites   11 of 11 use withTransaction
  counterexamples    none
  consequence        a failure between the insert and the
                     ledger update leaves an invoice with
                     no corresponding entry

  suggested          wrap lines 40-58; no signature change

Scope limits#

The reviewer does not approve, merge, or gate. It produces findings; a human decides. This is not a temporary limitation pending better models — review authority is a human accountability boundary, and the runtime is built to keep it that way.