the review · code review
Code review as chain verification
The technical reviewer — typically the tech lead or a senior developer — checks a different set of things than the three confirmations above. The code review is not about style. It is about whether the code honours the chain:
- Domain naming — do function names, variable names, and module names speak the domain language from the brief? A function called
handlePostinstead ofenforceIdempotentSubmissionis a naming drift that erodes traceability. - ADR compliance — does the code honour the architectural decisions? If ADR-014 requires idempotency keys on all charge attempts, the reviewer checks that the key is generated, sent, and persisted. The ADR is the reviewer's checklist.
- Scenario coverage — do the tests cover all named scenarios from the amigos session? A PR with three scenarios named in the story but only two tests has a gap.
- Contract adherence — does the API implementation match the contract from Volume III? Request shape, response shape, error codes, guarantees.
The trace question: can you follow this PR back to the brief? PR title → story → Epic → Feature Brief → witnessed moment. If any link is missing, the chain broke somewhere between amigos and merge.
Resolution gate — Review to Flags
Enough to ship without losing what was witnessed.
Three confirmations recorded. Code review passed with domain naming, ADR compliance, scenario coverage, and contract adherence verified. The PR title traces to the story. The commit messages trace to the scenarios.