Code Changes -> Security Scan (P1) -> TDD Validation (P2) -> Code Quality -> Verdict

// CRITICAL: SQL Injection
// BAD:
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;

// GOOD:
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
db.query(query, [userId]);

// CRITICAL: XSS
// BAD:
element.innerHTML = userInput;

// GOOD:
element.textContent = userInput;

// CRITICAL: Command injection
// BAD:
exec(`ls ${userPath}`);

// GOOD:
fs.readdir(userPath);

// CRITICAL: Hardcoded secrets
// BAD:
const apiKey = 'sk-1234567890';

// GOOD:
const apiKey = process.env.API_KEY;

// BAD: Testing implementation details
test('calls internal method', () => {
  const spy = jest.spyOn(service, '_privateMethod');
  service.doThing();
  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled();  // Testing HOW, not WHAT
});

// GOOD: Testing behavior/outcome
test('returns processed result', () => {
  const result = service.doThing();
  expect(result).toEqual(expectedOutput);  // Testing WHAT
});

// BAD: Unrealistic mock data
const mockUser = { id: 1, name: 'test' };

// GOOD: Realistic test data
const mockUser = {
  id: 'usr_abc123',
  name: 'Jane Smith',
  email: 'jane@example.com',
  createdAt: new Date('2024-01-15'),
  roles: ['user', 'admin']
};

// BAD: Only happy path
test('creates user', () => {
  const user = createUser(validData);
  expect(user).toBeDefined();
});

// GOOD: Edge cases covered
test('creates user with valid data', () => { /* ... */ });
test('throws on missing email', () => { /* ... */ });
test('throws on duplicate username', () => { /* ... */ });
test('handles unicode names', () => { /* ... */ });

// BAD: No documentation
export function createUser(data) {
  return db.create(data);
}

// GOOD: Full documentation
/**
 * Creates a new user account with validation.
 *
 * @param data - User creation input
 * @returns Created user object
 * @throws {ValidationError} If email invalid
 *
 * @related
 *   - ./UserRepository.ts - Database persistence
 *   - ../validators/email.ts - Email validation
 */
export async function createUser(data: CreateUserInput): Promise<User>

# Code Review: [Branch/PR]

## Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Files reviewed | X |
| Security issues | X (Y critical) |
| TDD compliance | Y/N |
| Verdict | Ready/Review/Rework |

## Security Issues
### Critical
1. **[Type]** - `file:line`
   - Problem: [desc]
   - Impact: [potential damage]
   - Fix: [solution]

## TDD Issues
1. **[Issue]** - `file:line`
   - Fix: [tests to add]

## Code Quality Issues
[issues]

## Verdict
[decision + reasoning]

### Required Before Merge
- [ ] [action item]

# Check for secrets
grep -r "password\|secret\|api_key\|token" --include="*.ts"

# Check for SQL injection
grep -r "SELECT.*\${" --include="*.ts"

# Check for XSS
grep -r "innerHTML\|dangerouslySetInnerHTML" --include="*.tsx"

# Check test coverage
npm test -- --coverage

# Verify tests exist for changed files

<decision-transparency>
**Decision:** Approve with minor suggestions (Ready)

**Reasoning:**
- **Security**: No vulnerabilities found
- **Testing**: All new code has tests
- **Quality**: Minor naming suggestions only

**Issues Found:**
1. Minor: Variable name `d` could be `data` (line 42)
2. Minor: Consider extracting magic number 5 to constant

**Confidence:** High - Standard approval scenario
</decision-transparency>

<debate-invitation>
**Topic:** Handling of deprecated API usage

**Option A: Block Until Fixed**
- Pros: No technical debt
- Cons: Delays release

**Option B: Approve with Follow-up Task**
- Pros: Pragmatic, allows progress
- Cons: Debt may linger

**My Lean:** Option B - Create ticket, set deadline

**Your Input Needed:** Is there a release deadline? How critical is this code path?
</debate-invitation>