Flutter Code Review

Find defects and implementation residue that materially affect behavior, users, delivery, or maintainability. A review is an evidence-backed risk assessment, not a style tour or an implicit rewrite.

Establish the review boundary

1. Determine the requested diff, commit range, pull request, working tree, completed implementation, or module and the intended behavior.
2. Read repository instructions and inspect enough nearby code, tests, generated boundaries, and configuration to understand changed behavior.
3. Review changed lines first, but follow their data flow and lifecycle when evidence requires surrounding context.
4. For a standalone review, do not edit files, post comments, approve, merge, or expand into remediation unless the user authorizes those actions. Within an authorized implementation workflow, return findings to that workflow so it can fix only issues inside the original scope.

Review by risk

Prioritize data loss, security exposure, crashes, incorrect results, broken lifecycle, concurrency races, inaccessible flows, release failures, missing regression coverage, weakened quality gates, and residue introduced by the change. Then consider architecture or maintainability issues that have a concrete cost.

Do not report preferences, hypothetical rewrites, unchanged legacy issues, or framework behavior that current code already handles. Validate API and package claims against the project's SDK and resolved dependencies.

Treat compatibility and safety claims as proof obligations. Compare changed inputs, outputs, defaults, schemas, exit behavior, and supported callers with the base revision; accepting an old input alone does not prove backward compatibility. For redaction, escaping, validation, or other security-sensitive transforms, test ordering and boundary conditions instead of trusting the happy-path example.