AoC Solution Review

Reviews Advent of Code solutions with focus on learning TypeScript through practical feedback.

When to Use

• User asks to "review day N"
• User wants feedback on their AoC solution
• User asks for code quality or performance analysis

Review Process

1. Run checks: Execute automated validation first

   bun test src/days/dayNN.test.ts   # Verify tests pass
   bunx eslint src/days/dayNN.ts     # Check for lint errors (no --fix)
   bunx prettier --check src/days/dayNN.ts  # Check formatting
   

2. Read the solution: Load src/days/dayNN.ts and src/days/dayNN.test.ts
3. Consult the oracle: Ask for a thorough review covering all sections below
4. Research algorithms: If the solution uses a notable algorithm (BFS, dynamic programming, etc.), do a brief web search for relevant Wikipedia or reference articles to mention
5. Present findings: Organize feedback into the standard sections

Review Sections

1. TypeScript Quality

• Type safety: Identify any, unnecessary ! assertions, weak unions
• Idiomatic patterns: Suggest modern TS/JS idioms (destructuring, optional chaining, nullish coalescing)
• Naming: Flag unclear variable names, suggest improvements
• Organization: Comment on function size, separation of concerns

2. Code Readability

• Parsing vs logic: Is input parsing cleanly separated from solution logic?
• Comments: Are complex algorithms explained? (But don't over-comment obvious code)
• Magic numbers: Flag unexplained constants
• Control flow: Identify overly nested or confusing logic

3. Performance Analysis

• Complexity: State time/space complexity (e.g., O(n²))
• Hot loops: Identify operations in tight loops that could be optimized
• Data structures: Suggest better structures if applicable (Map vs object, Set vs array)
• Practical balance: Note when optimization isn't worth the complexity

4. Potential Bugs & Edge Cases

• Off-by-one errors: Check loop bounds
• Undefined access: Identify risky array/object accesses
• Empty input: Would the solution handle empty or malformed input?

5. Automated Checks

Report results from the automated checks run in step 1:

• Tests: Pass/fail status
• ESLint: Any errors or warnings
• Prettier: Formatting issues (if any)

6. Algorithm Notes

If a notable algorithm is used, briefly mention:

• What algorithm/technique is being used
• Link to Wikipedia or other reference for further reading
• Whether there's a more efficient approach worth knowing about

7. Suggestions (Prioritized)

List 3-5 concrete improvements, ordered by impact:

1. Must fix: Bugs or serious issues
2. Should improve: Clear wins for readability or performance
3. Consider: Nice-to-haves or learning opportunities

Output Format

## Day N Review

### Automated Checks
- Tests: ✓ passed / ✗ failed
- ESLint: ✓ clean / [errors]
- Prettier: ✓ formatted / [issues]

### TypeScript Quality
[findings]

### Readability
[findings]

### Performance
[findings]

### Edge Cases
[findings]

### Algorithm Notes
[technique used, reference link, alternatives]

### Suggestions
1. [highest priority]
2. [next priority]
...

Guidelines

• Be direct and matter-of-fact — skip praise and filler
• Explain why something is better, not just what to change
• Reference specific line numbers when pointing out issues
• Never offer to apply fixes — this skill is pedagogic only, not for writing code
• Keep suggestions practical for AoC context (not production-grade over-engineering)

Examples

See reference/examples.md for calibration examples showing:

• Good vs bad patterns for common issues
• Appropriate feedback tone and specificity
• How to phrase constructive criticism