From 20ae32aec5fda9cc2f08059482a3732fb9fbbda0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Linnet <59899077+797tracker@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 19:55:14 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] feat(plan-eng-review): flag optimistic-UI on a server-gated action as a code-quality check MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Adds one Code-quality-review bullet: for an action whose real effect is gated or actuated server-side (auth/permission/validation), check that the client awaits and surfaces the real result rather than optimistically assuming success. Optimistic status + a swallowed rejection renders as a false success — a green check while the server quietly rejected and nothing happened. The catalog already has general "silent failure / swallowed error" framing in the adversarial /ship pass; this names the specific, common client↔server variant so an eng-review reviewer checks the effect landed, not the toast. Source edited in the section template; generated section doc regenerated via `bun run gen:skill-docs`. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) --- plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md | 1 + plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md b/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md index fefa4907a..a6dc9782e 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md +++ b/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ Evaluate: * Code organization and module structure. * DRY violations—be aggressive here. * Error handling patterns and missing edge cases (call these out explicitly). +* Server-gated or actuated actions with optimistic UI—does the client await and surface the real result, or assume success? A swallowed rejection (auth/permission/validation) renders as false success; verify the effect landed, not the toast. * Technical debt hotspots. * Areas that are over-engineered or under-engineered relative to my preferences. * Existing ASCII diagrams in touched files — are they still accurate after this change? diff --git a/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl b/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl index ee26cf05b..377a9e68c 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ Evaluate: * Code organization and module structure. * DRY violations—be aggressive here. * Error handling patterns and missing edge cases (call these out explicitly). +* Server-gated or actuated actions with optimistic UI—does the client await and surface the real result, or assume success? A swallowed rejection (auth/permission/validation) renders as false success; verify the effect landed, not the toast. * Technical debt hotspots. * Areas that are over-engineered or under-engineered relative to my preferences. * Existing ASCII diagrams in touched files — are they still accurate after this change?