sherlock-review

Evidence Collection Checklist

| Category | What to Check | How |

|----------|---------------|-----|

| Claim | PR description, commit messages | Read thoroughly |

| Code | Actual file changes | git diff |

| Tests | Coverage, assertions | Run independently |

| Behavior | Runtime output | Execute locally |

| Timeline | When things happened | git log, git blame |

Verdict Levels

| Verdict | Meaning |

|---------|---------|

| ✓ TRUE | Evidence fully supports claim |

| ⚠ PARTIALLY TRUE | Claim accurate but incomplete |

| ✗ FALSE | Evidence contradicts claim |

| ? NONSENSICAL | Claim doesn't apply to context |

---

```markdown

The Claim

"[What PR/commit claims to do]"

Evidence Examined

• Code changes: [files, lines]
• Tests added: [count, coverage]
• Behavior observed: [what actually happens]

Deductive Analysis

Claim: [specific assertion]

Evidence: [what you found]

Deduction: [logical conclusion]

Verdict: ✓/⚠/✗

Findings

• What works: [with evidence]
• What doesn't: [with evidence]
• What's missing: [gaps in implementation/testing]

Recommendations

1. [Action based on findings]

```

---

Scenario 1: "This Fixed the Bug"

Steps:

1. Reproduce bug on commit before fix
2. Verify bug is gone on commit with fix
3. Check if fix addresses root cause or symptom
4. Test edge cases not in original report

Red Flags:

• Fix that just removes error logging
• Works only for specific test case
• Workarounds instead of root cause fix
• No regression test added

Scenario 2: "Improved Performance by 50%"

Steps:

1. Run benchmark on baseline commit
2. Run same benchmark on optimized commit
3. Compare in identical conditions
4. Verify measurement methodology

Red Flags:

• Tested only on toy data
• Different comparison conditions
• Trade-offs not mentioned

Scenario 3: "Handles All Edge Cases"

Steps:

1. List all edge cases in code path
2. Check each has test coverage
3. Test boundary conditions
4. Verify error handling paths

Red Flags:

• catch {} swallowing errors
• Generic error messages
• No logging of critical errors

---

```markdown

Claims Examined:

1. "Eliminates race condition"
2. "Adds mutex locking"
3. "100% thread safe"

Evidence:

• File: src/handlers/async-handler.js
• Changes: Added async/await, removed callbacks
• Tests: 2 new tests for async flow
• Coverage: 85% (was 75%)

Analysis:

Claim 1: "Eliminates race condition"

Evidence: Added await to sequential operations. No actual mutex.

Deduction: Race avoided by removing concurrency, not synchronization.

Verdict: ⚠ PARTIALLY TRUE (solved differently than claimed)

Claim 2: "Adds mutex locking"

Evidence: No mutex library, no lock variables, no sync primitives.

Verdict: ✗ FALSE

Claim 3: "100% thread safe"

Evidence: JavaScript is single-threaded. No worker threads used.

Verdict: ? NONSENSICAL (meaningless in this context)

Conclusion:

Fix works but not for reasons claimed. Race condition avoided by

making operations sequential, not by adding synchronization.

Recommendations:

1. Update PR description to accurately reflect solution
2. Add test for concurrent request handling
3. Remove incorrect technical claims

```

---

```typescript

// Evidence-based code review

await Task("Sherlock Review", {

prNumber: 123,

claims: [

"Fixes memory leak",

"Improves performance 30%"

],

verifyReproduction: true,

testEdgeCases: true

}, "qe-code-reviewer");

// Bug fix verification

await Task("Verify Fix", {

bugCommit: 'abc123',

fixCommit: 'def456',

reproductionSteps: steps,

testBoundaryConditions: true

}, "qe-code-reviewer");

```

---

Memory Namespace

```

aqe/sherlock/

├── investigations/* - Investigation reports

├── evidence/* - Collected evidence

├── verdicts/* - Claim verdicts

└── patterns/* - Common deception patterns

```

Fleet Coordination

```typescript

const investigationFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({

strategy: 'evidence-investigation',

agents: [

'qe-code-reviewer', // Code analysis

'qe-security-auditor', // Security claim verification

'qe-performance-validator' // Performance claim verification

],

topology: 'parallel'

});

```

---

• [brutal-honesty-review](../brutal-honesty-review/) - Direct technical criticism
• [context-driven-testing](../context-driven-testing/) - Adapt to context
• [bug-reporting-excellence](../bug-reporting-excellence/) - Document findings

---

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." Trust only reproducible evidence. Don't trust commit messages, documentation, or "works on my machine."

The Sherlock Standard: Every claim must be verified empirically. What does the evidence actually show?