Examples:
- SQL injection vulnerability
- Unhandled null pointer
- Data corruption possibility
- Authentication bypass

Examples:
- Missing error handling
- Inefficient algorithm
- Poor naming
- Missing tests for edge cases

Examples:
- Variable naming suggestions
- Comment improvements
- Minor refactoring opportunities
- Documentation polish

## Review Feedback

### Critical (Must Fix)
1. Line 45: SQL query vulnerable to injection
2. Line 89: User data exposed in logs

### Important (Should Fix)
1. Line 23: Missing null check
2. Line 67: Test doesn't cover error path

### Minor (Can Defer)
1. Line 12: Consider renaming 'x' to 'count'
2. Line 34: Could extract to helper function

Addressing critical issue 1:
- File: src/db/queries.ts:45
- Issue: SQL injection vulnerability
- Fix: Use parameterized query
- Verification: Tested with malicious input

Addressing important issue 1:
- File: src/services/user.ts:23
- Issue: Missing null check
- Fix: Added guard clause
- Verification: Test added for null case

Deferred for follow-up:
- Line 12: Variable rename (tracked in TODO)
- Line 34: Extract helper (low priority)

## Re-Review Request

### Fixed Issues
- [x] SQL injection (line 45) - Now uses parameterized query
- [x] Data exposure (line 89) - Removed user data from logs
- [x] Null check (line 23) - Added guard clause
- [x] Test coverage (line 67) - Added error path test

### Deferred (Minor)
- Variable rename (line 12) - Will address in cleanup PR

### Changes Since Last Review
- 4 files modified
- 2 tests added
- All previous feedback addressed

1. Don't dismiss immediately
2. Consider the reviewer's perspective
3. Explain your reasoning
4. Provide evidence (code, tests, docs)
5. Be open to being wrong
6. Escalate if needed (tech lead, team discussion)

## Re: [Feedback item]

I considered this feedback carefully. Here's my perspective:

**Reviewer's concern**: [Their point]

**My reasoning**: [Why I did it this way]

**Evidence**: [Tests, benchmarks, docs supporting approach]

**Proposed resolution**: [Accept, discuss, or defer]

// Before (vulnerable)
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '${userId}'`;

// After (secure)
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1';
const result = await db.query(query, [userId]);

// Before
const user = await getUser(id);
return user.name;

// After
const user = await getUser(id);
if (!user) {
  throw new NotFoundError(`User ${id} not found`);
}
return user.name;

// Before: Only happy path tested
it('should return user', async () => {
  const user = await getUser('valid-id');
  expect(user).toBeDefined();
});

// After: Edge cases covered
it('should return user', async () => { /* ... */ });
it('should throw NotFoundError for missing user', async () => { /* ... */ });
it('should throw ValidationError for invalid id', async () => { /* ... */ });

// Before (N+1 query)
const users = await getUsers();
for (const user of users) {
  user.orders = await getOrders(user.id);
}

// After (batch query)
const users = await getUsers();
const userIds = users.map(u => u.id);
const ordersByUser = await getOrdersForUsers(userIds);
users.forEach(u => u.orders = ordersByUser[u.id]);

If review requires 3+ cycles:
1. STOP
2. Schedule discussion with reviewer
3. Identify root cause of misalignment
4. May need design discussion
5. Don't keep iterating endlessly