Gjalla Code Review

---
name: gjalla-code-review
description: Review a code change (diff or PR) for ship-readiness before merge. Use when reviewing your own or someone else's changes prior to committing/merging/etc.
---

# Code Review

Your task is to review the code changes as a team lead with extremely high standards.
You care about: simple, elegantly-designed, maintainable code; code which meets the expectations and verification criteria; code which is well-tested, robust, secure, and production-ready; and code that balances everything you know about the end user, the company, and the feature.

## Approach
1. Understand intent: what is this change supposed to do? (PR description, linked spec, commit messages.)
2. Put yourself in the shoes of multi-faceted reviewers based on what is relevant to this change. For instance, the perspective of a senior software engineer who is skilled at code correctness / edge cases / bugs / dead code, a product manager who is great at user experience and voice of the user, a QA engineer looking for quality and maintainability, a customer success manager responsible for implementation and value delivery, a security analyst looking for data access / privacy / security / vulnerabilities, an architect, etc.. No need to a) use all of these personas or b) use only these personas. Instead, using the context of this change, determine what the most helpful, adversarial, and gap-filling approach would be and take it.
3. From each perspective, review the diff in full, using second order thinking (what collateral, implicit, or second-order implications do these changes have?) and fresh eyes.
4. Based on what you've found, what is the priority of these items within the context of this user/product/company?

## Output
Group findings by severity:
- **Blocking** — must fix before merge (correctness, security, data loss).
- **Should fix** — quality/maintainability issues worth addressing now.
- **Nit** — optional polish.

For each finding: `file:line`, what's wrong, and a concrete suggested fix. State what you verified and what you could not.

## Principles
- Review the code that's there AND what's missing — the dangerous bug is usually the unhandled case, not the wrong line.
- Be specific: a finding without a location and a fix is noise.
- Approve only what you understand. If you can't tell whether it's correct, say so rather than rubber-stamping.