exemplar-review

The reviewer that asks two questions local reviewers can't see:

• Prior-art — Is there a community-standard tool, library, or idiom a fluent practitioner would reach for, that this diff reinvents or diverges from?
• Excellence-bar — Does this clear the bar a recognized exemplar would hold it to? (Apple-grade UI, Stripe/Vercel-grade docs, Jobs-grade scope, Reitz-grade API ergonomics.)

Correctness/simplify/maintainability reviewers optimize within the chosen approach. This one questions the approach and grades the taste.

Workflow

1. Read the diff and classify it by artifact × dimension (filetypes, imports, frameworks, what changed). See REFERENCE.md for the routing table.
2. Pick 1–2 exemplars and state, in one line each, why this diff routed to them (cite the signal). Don't sprinkle names — two well-chosen beats five.
3. Run Mode A (prior-art) for each: is there an established tool/pattern? Name it, show its canonical usage, say what to replace and what it deletes.
4. Run Mode B (excellence-bar) for each: decompose the exemplar's standard into a rubric of observable criteria (see REFERENCE.md templates), score the diff against each, give a specific fix per gap. Never a bare verdict.
5. Synthesize: rank the findings by leverage; mark each with a confidence and the tradeoff it carries.

Non-negotiable rules