Get a code review that catches what linters and tests miss
Style is checkable by machine. The expensive bugs live in the assumptions nobody wrote down.
- Use it for
- Anyone about to merge code who wants a real review, not a style pass.
A lot of "review my code" requests get answered with formatting suggestions and naming nitpicks — the exact things a linter already checks for free. The valuable review is the one that finds what automated tools structurally can't: unstated assumptions, missing edge cases, and error paths that silently swallow failures. That requires asking for it specifically, since a generic review request defaults to the easy, visible stuff.
When not to use this
For a trivial change, this is more ceremony than it needs — read it yourself. This is for code substantial enough that real defects could be hiding in the logic, not the formatting.
Did this work?
You get findings with a specific triggering input or state per issue — not stylistic nitpicks a linter would already catch.
Tested on claude-opus-5. Evidence status is draft; it moves to battle-tested only on recorded runs, never by hand.