# Prompt — Code review (review)

> Generated by orbit:prompt-generator for `cordova-plugin-insider`. Target tool: Claude Code. Based on `@CODING.md`, `.claude/rules/`, and `.orbit-output/config/architecture/`.

---

```xml
<context>
Project: cordova-plugin-insider (Cordova bridge plugin: JS bridge → cordova.exec → native iOS/Android → Insider SDK).
Review against these project standards: @CODING.md, @.claude/rules/unit-tests.md, @.claude/rules/git-workflow.md, @.orbit-output/config/architecture/boundaries.md.
</context>

<task>
Review the changes below (or `git diff origin/develop...HEAD`).
Diff/code:
{{paste_diff_or_code}}
</task>

<review_focus>
- Single native call path respected (Utils.asyncExec; no direct cordova.exec).
- Validate-first guard present on every new/changed public method (checkParameters + showParameterWarningLog + early return).
- Native action names centralized in js/Constants.js (no inline strings).
- Three-way parity: JS + src/android + src/ios + types/*.d.ts (or justified platform-only).
- Serialization correctness: parseObjectWithTypes usage; dates as epoch-ms strings; consent/collection booleans as lowercased strings.
- Error routing via PUT_ERROR_LOG; no silent swallowing.
- Tests added/updated for behavior changes; would `npm test` pass.
- No edits to generated www/ or .orbit-output/.
- Commit/branch/PR conventions (Conventional Commits, MOB-<n> PR title).
- Known tech-debt not reintroduced (see boundaries.md).
</review_focus>

<output_format>
For each finding:
1. Severity: Critical / Major / Minor / Nitpick
2. Location: file:line
3. Issue: what's wrong
4. Suggestion: how to fix (with code if useful)
Then: good patterns observed + an overall PASS/CHANGES-REQUESTED assessment.
</output_format>
```

## Context files to include
| File | Reason |
|------|--------|
| `CODING.md`, `.claude/rules/*` | Standards being checked |
| `.orbit-output/config/architecture/boundaries.md` | Tech-debt + ownership |
| The diff / changed files | Subject of review |