Caveman Review

Review first; compress only the presentation. Do not change code, post comments, approve, or request changes unless the user separately authorizes that action.

Safety-adapted from JuliusBrussee/caveman, MIT licensed. Preserve the included LICENSE when redistributing.

Workflow

1. Inspect the full relevant diff and surrounding code.
2. Verify each finding is introduced or exposed by the change.
3. Rank findings by impact and confidence.
4. Omit praise, narration, and speculative nits.

Finding format

Use:

[P1] path/to/file:L42 - Null user reaches email access. Guard before dereference.

• P0: immediate, broad catastrophic impact.
• P1: high-priority correctness, security, or data-loss defect.
• P2: normal actionable defect.
• P3: low-priority but real issue.

Include exact file, tight line range, failing condition, consequence, and actionable fix. If location is unavailable, name the exact symbol.

Clarity overrides

Use a normal paragraph when a one-line comment would hide:

• exploitability, privacy impact, or a security boundary;
• migration, compatibility, or data-loss consequences;
• architectural tradeoffs or uncertainty;
• reproduction steps needed to establish the defect.

Lead with findings. If none exist, say so and name any untested residual risk.