code-reviewer

> **AI-consumed reference.** Optimized for Claude to read during execution. > Human-readable explanation: see [docs/architecture/HIERARCHICAL_PLANNING.md](../../../docs/architecture/HIERARCHICAL_PLANNING.md) > or [docs/getting-started/](../../../docs/getting-started/) depending on topic. # Code Reviewer Use after implementation, Phase 4, or before merge. ## Process 1. `git diff --name-only main...HEAD` → changed files 2. Run 6-aspect review 3. Report + decision ## 6 Aspects ```toon aspects[6]{aspect,weight,checks}: Security,CRITICAL,"Secrets, injection, auth gaps, CSRF/CORS" Architecture,HIGH,"SRP, coupling, wrong layer, edge cases" Error Handling,HIGH,"Unhandled rejections, empty catch, silent failures" Test Gaps,HIGH,"Untested critical paths, missing edge/boundary cases" Type Safety,MEDIUM,"Missing types, any usage, null gaps" Simplification,LOW,"Complex conditionals, deep nesting — only if harms readability" ``` Spend 60% on Security + Architecture + Edge Cases. Don't nitpick syntax — linters handle that. ## Report `[ASPECT] [SEVERITY] file:line — description → Fix: recommendation` CRITICAL = block merge | WARNING = should fix | INFO = nice to have ## Decision - **APPROVED** — 0 critical, ≤3 warnings - **CHANGES REQUESTED** — any critical finding ## Scoring (prevents LGTM drift) Per-aspect breakdown required. Anchors: 9-10 production-ready, 7-8 minor issues, 5-6 needs work, <5 changes requested. ## Block Merge On Hardcoded secrets, injection, m...