Evidence-first pull request review with independent critique, selective challenger review, and human handoff.
87
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
87%
1.31xAverage score across 43 eval scenarios
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
{
"context": "Hard: distributed rate limiter uses separate Redis GET and SET instead of atomic INCR — concurrent requests can all read the same count and bypass the limit",
"type": "weighted_checklist",
"checklist": [
{
"name": "Catches non-atomic rate limit check",
"description": "Identifies that r.get(key), the comparison, and r.set(key, count+1) are three separate Redis operations with no atomicity (no MULTI/EXEC, no Lua script, no INCR). Under concurrent requests, multiple requests can read the same count and all pass the check.",
"max_score": 15
},
{
"name": "Identifies security impact on brute force protection",
"description": "Recognizes that the auth_login rate limit (5 req/min for brute force protection) is effectively bypassed under concurrent attack, making the rate limiter security-critical rather than just a performance concern",
"max_score": 8
},
{
"name": "Risk classified red",
"description": "PR is classified as red due to security-critical rate limiting with a concurrency flaw",
"max_score": 10
}
]
}evals
scenario-1
scenario-2
scenario-3
scenario-4
scenario-5
scenario-6
scenario-7
scenario-8
scenario-9
scenario-10
scenario-11
scenario-12
scenario-13
scenario-14
scenario-15
scenario-16
scenario-17
scenario-18
scenario-19
scenario-20
scenario-21
scenario-22
scenario-23
scenario-24
scenario-25
scenario-26
scenario-27
scenario-28
scenario-29
scenario-30
scenario-31
scenario-32
scenario-33
scenario-34
scenario-35
scenario-36
scenario-37
scenario-38
scenario-39
scenario-40
scenario-41
scenario-42
scenario-43
rules
skills
challenger-review
finding-synthesizer
fresh-eyes-review
human-review-handoff
pr-evidence-builder
review-retrospective