Skip to main content

Style

Review code quality consistency, coding patterns, and style drift.

Scope

1. Naming and shape consistency

  • naming consistency across types, constants, functions, and files
  • constructor and factory naming follows a single project convention
  • module and file layout follows the established project structure
  • import/export patterns are consistent across the codebase

2. Control flow and state modeling

  • exhaustive handling of state variants where applicable
  • consistent assertion and error patterns
  • prefer explicit status/state fields over boolean flags for state transitions
  • prefer guard clauses and early returns over deep nesting
  • prefer data-driven lookups over long control-flow chains

3. Pattern consistency

Check where the codebase already has a clear local pattern:

  • structural patterns (table-driven, rule-driven) where nearby code uses them
  • error classification follows the project’s established convention
  • repeated argument groups that want one named type
  • raw strings or magic values that should become typed constants

4. Readability and hygiene

  • no banner or separator comments
  • no unused params, dead branches, or ad-hoc fallbacks
  • keep style aligned with nearby code
  • abstractions must earn their complexity — if a wrapper adds no value, inline it
  • no premature file splitting — keep related code in one file until size or complexity justifies separation
  • prefer clarity over cleverness: dense one-liners that require a mental pause should be simplified

Evidence threshold

Only flag issues with a clear local convention or documented repo-wide pattern. Do not enforce generic style-guide preferences.

Workflow

  1. Identify local style conventions from nearby code.
  2. Compare against repo-wide documented conventions.
  3. Find concrete deviations with evidence.
  4. Report findings ordered by severity.

Output

For each finding: severity, file, violated convention, evidence, fix direction.

Then: Must-fix | Optional polish | Open questions (if needed).

Red flags

  • Enforcing generic style dogma over local conventions
  • Broad rewrites instead of minimal fixes
  • Speculative abstractions
  • Nitpicking formatting not tied to repo conventions