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] {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}
