<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Pr-Review on vnykmshr</title><link>https://blog.vnykmshr.com/writing/tags/pr-review/</link><description>Recent content in Pr-Review on vnykmshr</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.vnykmshr.com/writing/tags/pr-review/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Reviewing code that looks right</title><link>https://blog.vnykmshr.com/writing/reviewing-code-that-looks-right/</link><pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://blog.vnykmshr.com/writing/reviewing-code-that-looks-right/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A 25-file PR has been open in another tab for two days. Three files hold the decision. The other twenty-two are reflections &amp;ndash; the new check applied at every call site, the tests that exercise each site, the formatter cleaning up after.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The review failure mode most reviewers carry is equal attention. Every file gets the same eye. Every diff gets the same minute. By line twelve hundred the budget is gone, and the three files that decide whether the system is actually defended got the same skim as the twenty-two files that mirror the decision.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>