Template: Code Review Report [PR Title or #Number]

Reviewer: [Quality Reviewer | Principal Engineer] Date: YYYY-MM-DD PR Link: [GitHub PR URL] Author: [Back End Engineer | Front End Engineer]

Review Type

• Quality Review (coding standards, idioms, static analysis) — Quality Reviewer
• Architectural Review (plan adherence, design alignment) — Principal Engineer

Summary

One-paragraph assessment of the pull request. State whether the PR is approved, requires changes, or is blocked.

Verdict: Approved | Approved with Comments | Changes Requested | Blocked

Findings

Critical (must fix before merge)

#	File : Line	Description	Category
1	path/to/file.kt:42	[Description of issue]	[e.g., Bug, Security, Design]

Recommended (should fix before merge)

#	File : Line	Description	Category
1	path/to/file.kt:78	[Description of issue]	[e.g., Naming, Idiom, Pattern]

Informational (suggestions for future consideration)

#	File : Line	Description	Category
1	path/to/file.kt:120	[Description of observation]	[e.g., Performance, Readability]

Checklist

Quality Review (Quality Reviewer)

• Naming conventions followed (Kotlin/TypeScript project standards)
• Code is idiomatic for the language
• No code duplication; shared utilities used where appropriate
• Error handling follows established patterns
• Test coverage is adequate (happy path, error cases, edge cases)
• Test code is well-organized with shared harnesses
• No hardcoded values that should be configuration
• No secrets or credentials in code

Architectural Review (Principal Engineer)

• Implementation follows the approved implementation plan
• common-module abstractions used correctly
• API contracts match the specification
• Persistence patterns follow established conventions
• No unplanned architectural decisions made
• CHANGELOG entry is accurate and follows conventions

Positive Observations

List aspects of the code that are well done and should be maintained as examples.