Artifact: Review Comments, Labeled by Severity

ex-52 · exercises co-05 · blocking vs. nit vs. praise, so the author knows what must be resolved.

Review of PR #151 (feat(loyalty): add points redemption):

blocking: missing a test for redeeming more points than the balance holds -- this needs a
regression test before merge, since an over-redemption bug here directly affects account balances.
 
nit: `pts` could be spelled out as `points` for readability -- not blocking, your call.
 
praise: the early-return guard on a zero-amount redemption is a nice touch -- avoids a wasted
database write for a no-op call.

Verify: each comment is explicitly prefixed with its severity (blocking/nit/praise), and only the blocking comment states a concrete required action ("needs a regression test before merge") -- an author reading this list can immediately tell which one item is mandatory and which two are optional, satisfying co-05's rule.

Key takeaway: three sentences of feedback, three different obligations -- and the label is what makes that difference legible at a glance instead of requiring the author to infer tone.

Why It Matters: unlabeled feedback forces every comment to be treated as equally urgent (or equally optional), which either stalls a PR on a nit or lets a real blocking issue slip through because it read, in isolation, like a suggestion; per Example 21 (Google's own eng-practices guidance is cited in this topic's accuracy notes), this labeling convention is one of the most widely adopted lightweight fixes for exactly that ambiguity.