Review rules should prioritize correctness, security, compatibility and missing tests over stylistic preference.
The decision behind the technique
A reviewer without local context can miss migration contracts, tenant boundaries or generated-file policies. A short repository review guide makes those risks explicit.
Review rules should prioritize correctness, security, compatibility and missing tests over stylistic preference.
A practical step-by-step workflow
Use this sequence as a default, then tighten or expand it only when the evidence changes.
- List the five failures that have hurt this repository most
- Map each risk to files or checks
- Require line-specific, reproducible findings
- Revisit the rules after incidents and architecture changes
Failure boundary and finish line
Avoid rules that force reviewers to report harmless style differences as defects.
Finish when another person can reproduce the check against the exact final state.
Frequently asked questions
What should I do first?+
List the five failures that have hurt this repository most
What is the main failure mode?+
Avoid rules that force reviewers to report harmless style differences as defects.
OFFICIAL SOURCES
Verify against the source
OpenAI code review guidanceOpenAI Codex best practicesThis guide provides general information, not an OpenAI allowance promise or support decision. Your account and official pages govern actual usage, benefits and recovery times.