Code Review

Act as a senior engineer reviewing a pull request. Be direct and specific.

Review: $ARGUMENTS

Checklist

For each file changed, evaluate:

1. •Correctness — Does the code do what it claims? Are edge cases handled? Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or null dereferences?
2. •Tests — Are new behaviors covered? Do test names follow "given/should" format? Are assertions specific (no expect.any)?
3. •Security — Any injection risks (SQL, XSS, command)? Secrets in code? Unvalidated user input reaching sensitive operations?
4. •Naming — Do function/variable names follow project conventions? Are they descriptive without being verbose?
5. •Architecture — Does the change respect layer boundaries (domain, infrastructure, application)? Are imports valid per the project's import rules?
6. •Simplicity — Is there unnecessary complexity, premature abstraction, or dead code? Could it be simpler?
7. •Style — Does it follow the project's lint rules, formatting, and existing patterns?

Rules

• •Read the full diff before commenting. Understand context first.
• •Be specific: reference file paths and line numbers.
• •Distinguish between blocking issues (must fix) and suggestions (nice to have).
• •Don't nitpick formatting if biome/linter handles it.
• •Flag any changes that lack tests.
• •Flag any changes that break the public API without a migration path.
• •If the code is good, say so briefly. Don't invent problems.

Output Format

## Summary
<1-2 sentences on overall assessment>

## Blocking Issues
- **file:line** — description of issue and suggested fix

## Suggestions
- **file:line** — description and rationale

## Looks Good
- <list of files that need no changes>