skills/harry-writing-style-skill/EXAMPLES/technical-review/bad.md

Bad Examples: technical-review

1. The current implementation is a solid start, but there may be some room to improve image loading performance.

   Fails because "takes up to 10 seconds" and "unacceptable" are the point. Keep the severity.

2. We should consider whether queue uniqueness could be leveraged to improve duplicate handling in a more robust way.

   Fails because it hides the concrete River constraint: uniqueness only works on specific input payload fields.

3. The in-browser approach appears promising, so it may be worth consolidating around it with a clean implementation.

   Fails because it removes the decision and the quality bar: this is the one that works, consolidate on it, make it beautiful.

4. The dialog resizing between tabs could create a slightly inconsistent user experience.

   Fails because the invariant is direct: the dialog should not change size.

5. There are some cost considerations around the proposed database provider migration.

   Fails because "the cost increase seems quite excessive" is the judgement.

6. The proposed job architecture should be evaluated to ensure it aligns with the new processing model.

   Fails because it avoids the before/after: railway endpoint every hour -> self-contained pgBoss chunked job.

7. This gateway strategy raises interesting questions around routing efficiency for multiple web instances.

   Fails because it says nothing useful. The unresolved problem is lowest-latency routing without an edge network.

8. This output seems unexpected.

   Fails when the source says "This seems wrong". Do not soften obvious suspicion.