Review Feedback Schema
Purpose
Structured format for logging code review outcomes. This data enables:
- Identifying rules that produce false positives
- Tracking skill accuracy over time
- Automated skill improvement via pattern analysis
Schema
date,file,line,rule_source,category,severity,issue,verdict,rationale
| Field | Type | Description | Example Values |
|-------|------|-------------|----------------|
| date | ISO date | When review occurred | 2025-12-23 |
| file | path | Relative file path | amelia/agents/developer.py |
| line | string | Line number(s) | 128, 190-191 |
| rule_source | string | Skill and rule that triggered issue | python-code-review/common-mistakes:unused-variables, pydantic-ai-common-pitfalls:tool-decorator |
| category | enum | Issue taxonomy | type-safety, async, error-handling, style, patterns, testing, security |
| severity | enum | As flagged by reviewer | critical, major, minor |
| issue | string | Brief description | Return type list[Any] loses type safety |
| verdict | enum | Human decision | ACCEPT, REJECT, DEFER, ACKNOWLEDGE |
| rationale | string | Why verdict was chosen | pydantic-ai docs explicitly support this pattern |
Verdict Types
| Verdict | Meaning | Action |
|---------|---------|--------|
| ACCEPT | Issue is valid, will fix | Code change made |
| REJECT | Issue is invalid/wrong | No change; may improve skill |
| DEFER | Valid but not fixing now | Tracked for later |
| ACKNOWLEDGE | Valid but intentional | Document why it's intentional |
When to Use Each
ACCEPT: The reviewer correctly identified a real issue.
2025-12-27,amelia/agents/developer.py,128,python-code-review:type-safety,type-safety,major,Return type list[Any] loses type safety,ACCEPT,Changed to list[AgentMessage]
REJECT: The reviewer was wrong - the code is correct.
2025-12-23,amelia/drivers/api/openai.py,102,python-code-review:line-length,style,minor,Line too long (104 > 100),REJECT,ruff check passes - no E501 violation exists
DEFER: Valid issue but out of scope for current work.
2025-12-22,api/handlers.py,45,fastapi-code-review:error-handling,error-handling,minor,Missing specific exception type,DEFER,Refactoring planned for Q1
ACKNOWLEDGE: Intentional design decision.
2025-12-21,core/cache.py,89,python-code-review:optimization,patterns,minor,Using dict instead of dataclass,ACKNOWLEDGE,Performance-critical path - intentional
Rule Source Format
Format: skill-name/section:rule-id or skill-name:rule-id
Examples:
python-code-review/common-mistakes:unused-variablespydantic-ai-common-pitfalls:tool-decoratorfastapi-code-review:dependency-injectionpytest-code-review:fixture-scope
Use the skill folder name and identify the specific rule or section that triggered the issue.
Category Taxonomy
| Category | Description | Examples |
|----------|-------------|----------|
| type-safety | Type annotation issues | Missing types, incorrect types, Any usage |
| async | Async/await issues | Blocking in async, missing await |
| error-handling | Exception handling | Bare except, missing error handling |
| style | Code style/formatting | Line length, naming conventions |
| patterns | Design patterns | Anti-patterns, framework misuse |
| testing | Test quality | Missing coverage, flaky tests |
| security | Security issues | Injection, secrets exposure |
Writing Good Rationales
For ACCEPT
Explain what you fixed:
- "Changed Exception to (FileNotFoundError, OSError)"
- "Fixed using model_copy(update={...})"
- "Removed unused Any import"
For REJECT
Explain why the issue is invalid:
- "ruff check passes - no E501 violation exists" (linter authoritative)
- "pydantic-ai docs explicitly support this pattern" (framework idiom)
- "Intentional optimization documented in code comment" (documented decision)
For DEFER
Explain when/why it will be addressed:
- "Tracked in issue #123"
- "Refactoring planned for Q1"
- "Blocked on dependency upgrade"
For ACKNOWLEDGE
Explain why it's intentional:
- "Performance-critical path per CLAUDE.md"
- "Legacy API compatibility requirement"
- "Matches upstream library pattern"
Example Log
date,file,line,rule_source,category,severity,issue,verdict,rationale
2025-12-20,tests/integration/test_cli_flows.py,407,pytest-code-review:parametrization,testing,minor,Unused extra_args parameter in parametrization,ACCEPT,Fixed - removed dead parameter
2025-12-20,tests/integration/test_cli_flows.py,237-242,pytest-code-review:coverage,testing,major,Missing review --local in git repo error test,REJECT,Not applicable - review uses different error path
2025-12-21,amelia/server/orchestrator/service.py,1702,python-code-review:immutability,patterns,critical,Direct mutation of frozen ExecutionState,ACCEPT,Fixed using model_copy(update={...})
2025-12-23,amelia/drivers/api/tools.py,48-53,pydantic-ai-common-pitfalls:tool-decorator,patterns,major,Misleading RunContext pattern - should use decorators,REJECT,pydantic-ai docs explicitly support passing raw functions with RunContext to Agent(tools=[])
2025-12-23,amelia/drivers/api/openai.py,102,python-code-review:line-length,style,minor,Line too long (104 > 100),REJECT,ruff check passes - no E501 violation exists
2025-12-27,amelia/core/orchestrator.py,190-191,python-code-review:exception-handling,error-handling,major,Generic exception handling in get_code_changes_for_review,ACCEPT,Changed Exception to (FileNotFoundError OSError)
2025-12-27,amelia/agents/developer.py,128,python-code-review:type-safety,type-safety,major,Return type list[Any] loses type safety,ACCEPT,Changed to list[AgentMessage] and removed unused Any import
How This Feeds Into Skill Improvement
- Aggregate by rule_source: Identify which rules have high REJECT rates
- Analyze rationales: Find common themes in rejections
- Update skills: Add exceptions, clarifications, or verification steps
- Track impact: Measure if changes reduce rejection rate
See review-skill-improver skill for the full analysis workflow.
Improvement Signals
| Pattern | Skill Improvement | |---------|-------------------| | "linter passes" rejections | Add linter verification step before flagging style issues | | "docs support this" rejections | Add exception for documented framework patterns | | "intentional" rejections | Add codebase context check before flagging | | "wrong code path" rejections | Add code tracing step before claiming gaps |