principle-code-reviewlisted

<!-- preload-canary: SWB-PRELOAD-PRINCIPLE-CODE-REVIEW --> # Code Review Principles for high-signal code review. For tool-specific mechanics (diff-size routing, suggestion-block format, GitHub workflow), see the `swe-workbench:reviewer` agent. ## Five-Axis Review Lens Every review covers five axes: - **Correctness** — off-by-ones, null paths, concurrency races, lost errors, unhandled edge cases, null elements inside externally-deserialized collections (a valid payload can populate them), paired-guard predicate gaps (a check enforced by one sibling but missing in its pair). - **Security** — injection, auth/authz gaps, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, missing input validation at trust boundaries. - **Design integrity** — SOLID violations, leaky abstractions, tight coupling, circular deps, domain logic bleeding into infrastructure. *For complexity / duplication / length, prefer Quality-stage output over subjective comments — see `swe-workbench:workflow-development`.* - **Tests** — missing coverage on new branches, brittle tests, tests that mirror implementation rather than behavior. - **Comment quality** — unnecessary comments (WHAT-not-WHY, restates-the-code, commented-out code, over-explained / decision-essay), doc-comments over the per-language cap, and stale comments (unchanged text, now wrong because the diff changed the code it describes — not merely code near it); hygiene-tier, in-diff `+` lines for the four categories, plus a stale comment's own cont