readability-and-naming

Target: $ARGUMENTS

If no target path is given above, review the entire codebase.

Evaluate our code for readability and naming.

Review:

1. NAMING CONVENTIONS
   • Variables: descriptive vs cryptic (e.g., 'u' vs 'user')
   • Functions: verb-based, clear intent
   • Classes: noun-based, single responsibility
   • Constants: UPPER_CASE consistency
   • Private methods: underscore convention
2. NAMING CONSISTENCY
   • camelCase vs snake_case mixing
   • Abbreviation consistency
   • Domain terminology usage
   • British vs American spelling
3. CODE READABILITY
   • Self-documenting code
   • Need for comments (too many = code smell)
   • Magic numbers/strings
   • Complex boolean expressions
   • Ternary operator abuse
4. FUNCTION SIGNATURES
   • Parameter count (>3 is a smell)
   • Boolean parameters (avoid)
   • Optional parameter handling
   • Return type clarity

In the audit report, document a naming convention guide based on findings.

Provide:

A structured finding report

A scale of 1/10 on how important each finding is

Remediation: precise code-level fix or config change (snippets welcome) if possible

Constraints & style:

Be concrete and cite exact code locations and identifiers.

Prefer minimal, drop-in fix snippets over prose.

Do not invent files or functions that aren’t present; if context is missing, mark as Unable to verify and say what code would prove it.

Write this into a markdown file and place it in the audits/ folder.