# --- template: id: technical-review-report name: Technical Review Report version: 1.0 description: Comprehensive technical review findings with accuracy, security, performance, and best practices assessment output: format: markdown filename: "technical-review-{{chapter_number}}-{{date}}.md" workflow: elicitation: false allow_skip: false sections: - id: metadata title: Review Metadata instruction: | Document review information: - Chapter number and title reviewed - Reviewer name and expertise area - Review date - Chapter version/draft number reviewed - Review scope (full chapter, code only, specific sections) - id: executive_summary title: Executive Summary instruction: | High-level overview: - Overall technical quality assessment (Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Major Issues) - Critical issues count (must-fix before publication) - Major issues count (should fix, impacts quality) - Minor issues count (nice-to-fix, improvements) - Recommendation: Ready for publication / Needs revision / Requires major rework - id: technical_accuracy title: Technical Accuracy Findings instruction: | Fact-checking and correctness: **Issues Found:** For each inaccuracy: - Location (section, page, line) - Issue description - Severity (Critical/Major/Minor) - Correct information with source reference - Recommended fix **Examples:** - "Section 2.3, page 12: States Python 3.8 supports match/case. Actually introduced in 3.10. Source: PEP 634" - "Code example line 45: Using deprecated 'collections.MutableMapping'. Should use 'collections.abc.MutableMapping' per Python 3.3+ docs" **Verified Correct:** - List sections that passed accuracy checks - Note particularly well-researched or documented areas - id: code_quality title: Code Quality Issues instruction: | Code example review: **Bugs and Errors:** - Syntax errors or code that won't run - Logic errors that produce wrong results - Missing imports or dependencies - Incorrect API usage **Best Practices Violations:** - Code style issues (PEP 8, ESLint, etc.) - Inefficient algorithms or approaches - Missing error handling - Hard-coded values that should be configurable - Poor naming conventions **Code Organization:** - Unclear or missing comments - Inconsistent formatting - Complex code needing simplification - Missing type hints (if language supports) For each issue, provide: - Location (file, line number) - Current code snippet - Issue description - Recommended fix with code example - id: security_concerns title: Security Concerns instruction: | Security review findings: **Critical Security Issues:** - Credentials or secrets in code - SQL injection vulnerabilities - XSS vulnerabilities - Insecure authentication/authorization - Unsafe deserialization - Missing input validation **Security Best Practices:** - Use of deprecated crypto functions - Weak password hashing - Missing HTTPS/TLS - Insufficient logging of security events - Overly permissive access controls For each finding: - Location - Vulnerability description - Potential impact (data breach, code execution, etc.) - Secure code example - Reference to security standard (OWASP, CWE) - id: performance_considerations title: Performance Considerations instruction: | Performance analysis: **Performance Issues:** - Inefficient algorithms (O(n²) where O(n) possible) - Unnecessary database queries (N+1 problem) - Missing indexes or caching - Memory leaks or excessive allocation - Blocking operations in async code **Scalability Concerns:** - Approaches that won't scale - Resource intensive operations - Missing pagination or limits **Recommendations:** - Optimizations to suggest - Better algorithms or data structures - Caching strategies - Profiling recommendations Note: Balance between teaching clarity and production optimization. - id: best_practices_assessment title: Best Practices Assessment instruction: | Industry standards compliance: **Design Patterns:** - Appropriate use of patterns - Anti-patterns to avoid - Better architectural approaches **Testing:** - Test coverage adequacy - Missing test cases - Testing best practices **Documentation:** - Code comments quality - Docstring completeness - API documentation **Dependencies:** - Outdated packages - Unnecessary dependencies - Version compatibility issues - id: outdated_information title: Outdated Information instruction: | Currency check: **Deprecated Features:** - Language features deprecated - Library versions outdated - APIs no longer recommended **Current Recommendations:** - Modern alternatives to suggest - Migration paths to mention - Version updates needed **Examples:** - "Using React class components; recommend functional components with hooks (current best practice since 2019)" - "References Node.js 12; now EOL. Update examples to Node.js 18 LTS or 20 LTS" - id: positive_findings title: Positive Findings instruction: | What worked well: - Particularly clear explanations - Excellent code examples - Well-designed tutorials - Good use of diagrams - Effective learning progression - Strong practical applications Recognizing strengths helps maintain quality in revisions. - id: recommendations title: Recommended Actions instruction: | Prioritized fix list: **Must Fix (Critical):** 1. [Issue with location and brief description] 2. ... **Should Fix (Major):** 1. [Issue with location and brief description] 2. ... **Nice to Fix (Minor):** 1. [Issue with location and brief description] 2. ... **Overall Recommendation:** - Ready to proceed? Yes/No - Estimated effort to address issues (hours/days) - Suggest re-review after fixes? Yes/No - id: references title: References Checked instruction: | Documentation and sources verified: - Official documentation URLs - Standards referenced (RFCs, PEPs, etc.) - Third-party libraries checked - Community best practices sources This provides traceability for technical claims.