caveman-review

From README

Rules Format: L : . . — or :L : ... 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.