Review Pr

3. Type Safety

• Are there unsafe type assertions (as any, ! non-null)?
• Are function parameters and return types correct?
• Are new interfaces/types well-defined?

4. Testing

• Are new features covered by tests?
• Do existing tests still pass?
• Are edge cases tested?

5. Code Quality

• Is the code readable and well-structured?
• Is there unnecessary duplication?
• Are naming conventions consistent with the rest of the codebase?
• Are there hardcoded values that should be configurable?

6. Security

• No secrets or credentials in the diff?
• No injection vulnerabilities (command, SQL, XSS)?
• Input validation present where needed?

7. Compatibility

• Are changes backward-compatible?
• Are imports and exports correct?
• Will this break other parts of the system?

Output Format

Provide your review in this format:

## PR Review: <PR title>

### Verdict: APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT

### Critical Issues (must fix)
- [ ] Issue description and file:line reference

### Warnings (should fix)
- [ ] Warning description and file:line reference

### Suggestions (nice to have)
- [ ] Suggestion description

### What Looks Good
- Positive observations about the implementation

Be specific — reference exact file paths and line numbers. Don't be vague. If the code is solid, say so. Don't invent issues that don't exist.