003 Name Skill 78ae6e55

---
name: review-verification-protocol
description: Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review findings.
---

# Review Verification Protocol

This protocol MUST be followed before reporting any code review finding. Skipping these steps leads to false positives that waste developer time and erode trust in reviews.

## Pre-Report Verification Checklist

Before flagging ANY issue, verify:

- [ ] **I read the actual code** - Not just the diff context, but the full function/class
- [ ] **I searched for usages** - Before claiming "unused", searched all references
- [ ] **I checked surrounding code** - The issue may be handled elsewhere (guards, earlier checks)
- [ ] **I verified syntax against current docs** - Framework syntax evolves (Tailwind v4, TS 5.x, React 19)
- [ ] **I distinguished "wrong" from "different style"** - Both approaches may be valid
- [ ] **I considered intentional design** - Checked comments, CLAUDE.md, architectural context

## Verification by Issue Type

### "Unused Variable/Function"

**Before flagging**, you MUST:
1. Search for ALL references in the codebase (grep/find)
2. Check if it's exported and used by external consumers
3. Check if it's used via reflection, decorators, or dynamic dispatch
4. Verify it's not a callback passed to a framework

**Common false positives:**
- State setters in React (may trigger re-renders even if value appears unused)
- Variables used in templates/JSX
- Exports used by consuming packages

### "Missing Validation/Error Handling"

**Before flagging**, you MUST:
1. Check if validation exists at a higher level (caller, middleware, route handler)
2. Check if the framework provides validation (Pydantic, Zod, TypeScript)
3. Verify the "missing" check isn't present in a different form

**Common false positives:**
- Framework already validates (FastAPI + Pydantic, React Hook Form)
- Parent component validates before passing props
- Error boundary catches at higher level

### "Type Assertion/Unsafe Cast"

**Before flagging**, you MUST:
1. Confirm it's actually an assertion, not an annotation
2. Check if the type is narrowed by runtime checks before the point
3. Verify if framework guarantees the type (loader data, form data)

**Valid patterns often flagged incorrectly:**
```go
// Type assertion with ok check, NOT unsafe cast
data, ok := value.(UserData)
if !ok {
    return fmt.Errorf("unexpected type: %T", value)
}

// Type switch is safe narrowing
switch v := value.(type) {
case User:
    v.Name  // Go knows this is User
}
```

### "Potential Memory Leak/Race Condition"

**Before flagging**, you MUST:
1. Verify cleanup function is actually missing (not just in a different location)
2. Check if AbortController signal is checked after awaits
3. Confirm the component can actually unmount during the async operation

**Common false positives:**
- Cleanup exists in useEffect return
- Signal is checked (code reviewer missed it)
- Operation completes before unmount is possible

### "Performance Issue"

**Before flagging**, you MUST:
1. Confirm the code runs frequently enough to matter (render vs click handler)
2. Verify the optimization would have measurable impact
3. Check if the framework already optimizes this (React compiler, memoization)

**Do NOT flag:**
- Functions created in click handlers (runs once per click)
- Array methods on small arrays (< 100 items)
- Object creation in event handlers

## Severity Calibration

### Critical (Block Merge)

**ONLY use for:**
- Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, data exposure)
- Data corruption bugs
- Crash-causing bugs in happy path
- Breaking changes to public APIs

### Major (Should Fix)

**Use for:**
- Logic bugs that affect functionality
- Missing error handling that causes poor UX
- Performance issues with measurable impact
- Accessibility violations

### Minor (Consider Fixing)

**Use for:**
- Code clarity improvements
- Documentation gaps
- Inconsistent style (within reason)
- Non-critical test coverage gaps

### Informational (No Action Required)

**Use for:**
- Improvements that require adding new dependencies or modules
- Suggestions for net-new code that didn't exist in the codebase before (new modules, test suites, abstractions)
- Architectural ideas for future consideration
- Test infrastructure suggestions (new mock libraries, behaviour extraction)
- Optimizations without measurable impact in the current context

**These are NOT review blockers.** They should be noted for the author's awareness but must not appear in the actionable issue count. The Verdict should ignore informational items entirely.

### Do NOT Flag At All

- Style preferences where both approaches are valid
- Optimizations with no measurable benefit
- Test code not meeting production standards (intentionally simpler)
- Library/framework internal code (shadcn components, generated code)
- Hypothetical issues that require unlikely conditions

## Valid Patterns (Do NOT Flag)

### Go

| Pattern | Why It's Valid |
|---------|----------------|
| `val, ok := map[key]` | Comma-ok idiom, standard for maps |
| Returning `error` as last return value | Go error handling convention |
| `defer` for cleanup | Correct resource management pattern |
| Short variable names in small scope | Idiomatic Go (e.g., `i`, `err`, `ctx`) |
| `interface{}` / `any` in generic code | Valid for truly heterogeneous data |

### Concurrency

| Pattern | Why It's Valid |
|---------|----------------|
| Unbuffered channel for synchronization | Correct when goroutines must synchronize |
| `select` with `default` | Non-blocking channel operation, intentional |
| `sync.Once` for initialization | Thread-safe lazy init pattern |
| `context.Background()` in main/tests | Valid root context for top-level calls |
| Goroutine without explicit join | Valid for fire-and-forget with proper lifecycle management |

### Testing

| Pattern | Why It's Valid |
|---------|----------------|
| Table-driven tests | Standard Go testing pattern |
| `t.Helper()` in test utilities | Correct for accurate error line reporting |
| `testify/assert` alongside stdlib | Common and acceptable in Go projects |
| Test function names without `_` | `TestFooBar` is idiomatic Go |

### General

| Pattern | Why It's Valid |
|---------|----------------|
| `+?` lazy quantifier in regex | Prevents over-matching, correct for many patterns |
| Direct string concatenation | Simpler than template literals for simple cases |
| Multiple returns in function | Can improve readability |
| Comments explaining "why" | Better than no comments |

## Context-Sensitive Rules

### Error Handling

Flag unchecked error **ONLY IF ALL** of these are true:
- [ ] Error return is explicitly ignored (not `_`)
- [ ] Function can return meaningful errors (not just `Close()`)
- [ ] Not in test code or example code
- [ ] Error would indicate a real problem, not a benign condition

### Goroutine Lifecycle

Flag goroutine leak **ONLY IF**:
- [ ] No context cancellation controls the goroutine
- [ ] No channel or WaitGroup provides shutdown signal
- [ ] Goroutine can outlive its parent scope
- [ ] Not a top-level server goroutine managed by the runtime

### Interface Design

Flag missing interface **ONLY IF**:
- [ ] Concrete type is used across package boundaries
- [ ] Testing requires mocking the dependency
- [ ] Multiple implementations exist or are planned
- [ ] Not a simple data struct (interfaces for behavior, not data)

## Before Submitting Review

Final verification:
1. Re-read each finding and ask: "Did I verify this is actually an issue?"
2. For each finding, can you point to the specific line that proves the issue exists?
3. Would a domain expert agree this is a problem, or is it a style preference?
4. Does fixing this provide real value, or is it busywork?
5. Format every finding as: `[FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE`
6. For each finding, ask: "Does this fix existing code, or does it request entirely new code that didn't exist before?" If the latter, downgrade to Informational.
7. If this is a re-review: ONLY verify previous fixes. Do not introduce new findings.

If uncertain about any finding, either:
- Remove it from the review
- Mark it as a question rather than an issue
- Verify by reading more code context