caveman-reviewlisted

Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing. ## Rules **Format:** `L<line>: <problem>. <fix>.` — or `<file>:L<line>: ...` when reviewing multi-file diffs. **Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):** - `🔴 bug:` — broken behavior, will cause incident - `🟡 risk:` — works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error) - `🔵 nit:` — style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore - `❓ q:` — genuine question, not a suggestion **Drop:** - "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..." - "This is just a suggestion but..." — use `nit:` instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment - Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff - Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use `q:` **Keep:** - Exact line numbers - Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks - Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this" - The *why* if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement ## Examples ❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here." ✅ `L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.` ❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller function