shoc-frontend-new/REVIEW_AND_PR_FRAMEWORK.md

# REVIEW_AND_PR_FRAMEWORK.md — PR review contract

Every PR is reviewed against this contract, by humans and by review agents. The
goal is high-signal review: catch real behavior, security, performance, and
regression problems — not re-lint what the gates already enforce.

## 1. Review the exact head

- **MUST** review the diff at the **current PR head**, not a stale checkout.
  Re-pull before reviewing if new commits landed; stale approvals are dismissed
  on push by branch protection.
- **MUST** read the full diff of every changed file, including renames and
  generated/mapper code, not only the "interesting" components.

## 2. Board-backed regression inventory

- **MUST** check the change against the **Seahaven Jira SH board** inventory —
  all visible tickets for this area, not only the current ticket. Behavior that
  is Done / QA-approved / released is **protected scope**.
- **MUST** treat a plausible regression against protected behavior as a
  **Blocker** until disproven with repo evidence (the accepting tests, the linked
  PR/release, and a targeted check of the changed code paths).
- **MUST NOT** approve if board access or the relevant inventory is missing —
  say so and block rather than infer a pass. A missing ticket link alone is not
  a blocker, but known acceptance criteria must still be traced.

The current Jira workflow has no `Ready for QA` transition. Merged work remains
in the documented pre-QA status until QA evidence supports `Done`; do not invent
a status or mark unverified work Done.

## 3. Behavior-based testing

- **MUST** test through **public behavior** (rendered output, user interactions,
  query/mutation outcomes), not internal implementation details. Prefer
  `@testing-library` queries and user-event flows; assert what users observe.
- **MUST NOT** add tests whose only purpose is to prove a tool (ESLint, the
  governance script) executes — validate tooling by running the real gates
  (`npm run verify`), not with assertion-free unit tests.
- **SHOULD** cover the meaningful branches of new logic: the happy path, the
  error/empty state, and any boundary the change introduces.

## 4. Security review

- **MUST** confirm no raw server error payloads, stack traces, or internal IDs
  leak to the UI (see ARCHITECTURE_AND_CODE_QUALITY.md §Security).
- **MUST** confirm no secrets/tokens are introduced into the build, and that no
  `VITE_*` variable carries a secret (it is baked into the bundle).
- **SHOULD** check untrusted input is validated (Zod) before use and that
  dangerously-set HTML / unescaped server strings are not introduced.

## 5. Performance and Big-O review

- **MUST** flag algorithmic regressions in hot paths: `O(n²)`+ loops over server
  collections, re-filtering/sorting on every render, unbounded list rendering
  without virtualization.
- **MUST** confirm TanStack Query keys are stable and that mutations invalidate
  the correct keys (no stale cache, no redundant refetch storms).
- **SHOULD** question speculative `useMemo`/`useCallback` (add when measured) and
  unstable identities passed to memoized children.

## 6. No style-only comments

- **MUST NOT** leave comments that only restate what Prettier or ESLint already
  enforces (formatting, naming nits the linter catches). Style is settled by the
  gates; review is for behavior, correctness, security, and architecture.
- **MUST** make every comment actionable: tie it to a behavior, a risk, or an
  evidence-based convention in these docs, and offer a concrete fix or a
  targeted question. Use GitHub suggestion blocks when safe.

## 7. Review close-out

A review is complete when it records, briefly:

1. Findings ordered by severity (Blocker / Needs-change / Suggestion), or
   "no findings".
2. Open questions and their owner.
3. Which of the above checks were run, and any that were skipped (and why).
4. Residual risk, if approving.

Do not write a monolithic review body or a validation transcript into the PR
surface; keep comments inline and high-signal.