# Design exercise: Code Review Systems

> Diff understanding, intent, correctness, maintainability, risk ranking, review workflows, and actionable findings. Implement designOutline() returning non-empty values for: changeIntent, riskFinding, actionableEvidence. Each value must name a concrete mechanism or decision.

Canonical: https://learn.significanthobbies.com/curriculum/drills/practice-code-review-systems

Diff understanding, intent, correctness, maintainability, risk ranking, review workflows, and actionable findings. Implement designOutline() returning non-empty values for: changeIntent, riskFinding, actionableEvidence. Each value must name a concrete mechanism or decision.

## The mechanism

Useful review connects a changed line to behavior and risk. Findings need evidence, severity, scope, and a concrete remediation—not generic style commentary.

## Expected evidence

A design outline with changeIntent, riskFinding, actionableEvidence plus an explicit failure mode or trade-off.

## Hints

- Name the failure mode before selecting the mechanism.

## Sources and practice

- [Google Engineering Practices — Code Review](https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/)
- [Modern Code Review: A Case Study at Google (ICSE-SEIP 2018)](https://research.google/pubs/modern-code-review-a-case-study-at-google/)
- [Software Engineering at Google — Ch. 9: Code Review](https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch09.html)
- [Software Engineering at Google — Ch. 19: Critique, Google's Code Review Tool](https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch19.html)
- [Study Code Review Systems](https://learn.significanthobbies.com/curriculum/concepts/code-review-systems)
- [Try the interactive drill](https://learn.significanthobbies.com/drills/practice-code-review-systems)
- [All practice briefs](https://learn.significanthobbies.com/curriculum/drills/)