multi-reviewer-patterns

Multi-Reviewer Patterns Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports. When to Use This Skill Organizing a multi-dimensional code review Deciding which review dimensions to assign Deduplicating findings from multiple reviewers Calibrating severity ratings consistently Producing a consolidated review report Review Dimension Allocation Available Dimensions Dimension Focus When to Include Security Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation Always for code handling user input or auth Performance Query efficiency, memory, caching When changing data access or hot paths Architecture SOLID, coupling, patterns For structural changes or new modules Testing Coverage, quality, edge cases When adding new functionality Accessibility WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav For UI/frontend changes Recommended Combinations Scenario Dimensions API endpoint changes Security, Performance, Architecture Frontend component Architecture, Testing, Accessibility Database migration Performance, Architecture Authentication changes Security, Testing Full feature review Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing Finding Deduplication When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location: Merge Rules Same file:line, same issue — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers Same file:line, different issues — Keep as separate findings Same issue, different locations — Keep separate but cross-reference Conflicting severity — Use the higher severity rating Conflicting recommendations — Include both with reviewer attribution Deduplication Process For each finding in all reviewer reports: 1. Check if another finding references the same file:line 2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue 3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description 4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located" 5. Use highest severity among merged findings Severity Calibration Severity Criteria Severity Impact Likelihood Examples Critical Data loss, security breach, complete failure Certain or very likely SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption High Significant functionality impact, degradation Likely Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow Medium Partial impact, workaround exists Possible N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error Low Minimal impact, cosmetic Unlikely Style issue, minor optimization, naming Calibration Rules Security vulnerabilities exploitable by external users: always Critical or High Performance issues in hot paths: at least Medium Missing tests for critical paths: at least Medium Accessibility violations for core functionality: at least Medium Code style issues with no functional impact: Low Consolidated Report Template

Code Review Report

**

Target

**

{files/PR/directory}

**

Reviewers

**

{dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}

**

Date

**

{date}

**

Files Reviewed

**

{count}

Critical Findings ({count})

[CR-001]

**

Location

**

:

{file}:{line}

**

Dimension

**

{Security/Performance/etc.}

**

Description

**

{what was found}

**

Impact

**

{what could happen}

**

Fix

**

{recommended remediation}

High Findings ({count}) ...

Medium Findings ({count}) ...

Low Findings ({count}) ...

Summary | Dimension | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Total | |

|

|

|

|

|

| | Security | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6 | | Performance | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | | Architecture | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | | ** Total ** | ** 1 ** | ** 3 ** | ** 9 ** | ** 5 ** | ** 18 ** |

Recommendation