wshobson/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

1. Same file:line, same issue — Merge into one finding, credit all reviewers
2. Same file:line, different issues — Keep as separate findings
3. Same issue, different locations — Keep separate but cross-reference
4. Conflicting severity — Use the higher severity rating
5. 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] {Title}

**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

{Overall assessment and prioritized action items}