<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Review on Chuanxilu for Skilled Homo sapiens</title><link>https://blog.chuanxilu.net/en/tags/review/</link><description>Recent content in Review on Chuanxilu for Skilled Homo sapiens</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 10:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.chuanxilu.net/en/tags/review/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Dimension Experiments: Can a 36-Year-Old Book Fix Your Review Coverage?</title><link>https://blog.chuanxilu.net/en/posts/2026/05/review-dimension-experiments/</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 10:00:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://blog.chuanxilu.net/en/posts/2026/05/review-dimension-experiments/</guid><description>Code review dimensions went from 8 to 11, design review from 11 to 14 — known-issue detection rose from 1/6 to 6/6 in both. The inspiration came from Axiomatic Design — a 36-year-old theory. But more dimensions are not always better — adding a math formula made results worse. The key is controlled experiments with known issues as reference.</description></item></channel></rss>