review-as-dev

Review as Developer

Overview

Review a technical analysis or specification document from a senior developer perspective. Focus on whether the proposed solution is technically sound, feasible, and addresses architecture, performance, and security concerns.

Announce at start: "I'm reviewing this document as a Developer."

Input

• Design + analysis document (typically docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md)
• The actual codebase (read relevant files to verify claims in the analysis)

Review Checklist

1. Code Verification (DO THIS FIRST)

CRITICAL: Do not trust the analysis at face value. Read the actual codebase to verify:

• Are the file:line references accurate?
• Do the claimed existing patterns actually exist in the code?
• Are the "files WITHOUT changes" truly unaffected?
• Is the proposed approach compatible with the actual code?

2. Technical Feasibility

• Is the proposed architecture realistic?
• Are the technology choices appropriate?
• Are there simpler alternatives that were not considered?
• Do the estimated phases seem realistic?

3. Architecture Concerns

• Does the solution fit the existing architecture?
• Are SOLID principles respected?
• Is the separation of concerns appropriate?
• Are there coupling issues or circular dependencies?
• Is the DI registration plan correct?

4. Missing Technical Details

• Are database indexes defined for query patterns?
• Are transaction boundaries specified?
• Is concurrency handling addressed?
• Are connection/resource lifetimes correct?
• Are migrations reversible?

5. Integration Points

• Are all integration points identified?
• Are API contracts (method signatures) complete?
• Will existing callers break?
• Are backward compatibility concerns addressed?
• Is the "files WITHOUT changes" section accurate?

6. Performance and Security

• Are there N+1 query risks?
• Is caching strategy appropriate?
• Are there potential memory issues (large data sets)?
• Is input validation sufficient?
• Are authorization checks in place?
• Are sensitive data handled correctly?

Output Format

Structure your review exactly like this:

# Dev Review: <topic>

## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall technical assessment]

## Architecture
- ✅ [Sound architectural decision]
- ❌ [Architecture concern -- explain why and suggest alternative]

## Technical gaps
- ❌ [Missing technical detail -- what needs to be specified]
- ❌ [Incorrect assumption -- what the code actually does at file:line]

## Integration risks
- ❌ [Integration point that may break]
- ❌ [Missing API contract detail]

## Performance / Security
- ❌ [Performance concern with suggested mitigation]
- ❌ [Security concern with suggested fix]

## Code verification
- ✅ [Verified: file:line reference is accurate]
- ❌ [Incorrect: file:line actually does X, not Y as claimed]

## Technical questions
1. [Question about implementation approach]
2. [Clarification about technical decision]

## Recommendations
1. [Actionable technical recommendation]
2. [Actionable technical recommendation]

## Verdict
**Technical quality:** [OK / Minor issues / Major issues]
**Recommended next step:** [Proceed to planning / Incorporate feedback / Needs architectural rework]

Key Principles

• Verify against code -- Always read the actual files referenced in the analysis
• Specific references -- Use file:line when pointing out issues
• Pragmatic -- Focus on real risks, not theoretical perfection
• Alternative proposals -- When flagging an issue, suggest a better approach
• Security mindset -- Think about what could go wrong in production