Course 4.10 · Curriculum 2026.1
Adversarial code review, and the defect five reviewers found
Point several reviewers at the same change from genuinely different angles, then keep only what survives scrutiny. On one review, 30 finding reports de-duplicated to 16 real defects, 14 were investigated and rejected, and the one that had killed an entire feature panel was found independently five times.
- Estimated effort
- 3 hr
- Lessons
- 26
- Modules
- 5
- Material
- 3 hr
Estimated effort is the sum of the lesson and lab times in the course outline, for this version of the course.
This course is planned and not on sale. The curriculum below is the plan, and it may change before the course opens.
See the courses on sale01What you will learn
7 capabilities, stated as things you can do
Each one is what you should be able to do at the end, not what the course covers. If an outcome is not testable, it is not an outcome.
- Brief several reviewers so they attack a change from angles that do not overlap.
- De-duplicate findings into defects, and record the ones you investigated and rejected.
- Reject a finding in writing, so the same false positive does not come back next week.
- Spot the defect class that only appears between two files: a key written here and read there.
- Check for a concurrent deploy that removed your work, before you blame your own change.
- Sweep a confirmed finding across the whole codebase, because one instance is rarely the only one.
- Report a review so a reader can tell a real defect from an opinion.
02Curriculum
5 modules, 26 lessons
Every lesson shows its length and its type, from the course outline.
5 modules · 26 lessons · 3 hr of material
A finding with no distinct angle is a duplicate waiting to happen. Briefing reviewers so their angles do not overlap is most of the discipline.
- VideoThirty finding reports, sixteen defects, and the discipline in betweenPreview8 min
- VideoBriefing reviewers for angles that do not overlap7 min
- VideoWhat one reviewer sees that another is briefed to ignore6 min
- ReadingA briefing vague enough that every reviewer finds the same three things5 min
- LabLab: brief three reviewers on the same change, three different angles9 min
- QuizCheck: briefing for non-overlapping angles7 min
Apex shipped the analysis under one key. The component looked for three others. Every section was dead, and five reviewers found it independently.
- VideoThe entire panel that could never render7 min
- VideoOne key from Apex, three keys expected by the component6 min
- ReadingFound independently by five reviewers, and what that means about the defectA defect five reviewers find independently is not a subtle one. It is one nobody had looked at.5 min
- LabLab: trace a dead panel back to a key mismatch9 min
- QuizCheck: the defect five reviewers found7 min
Before you fix your own code, check whether someone else’s deploy already changed it under you.
- VideoA tab stripped from the live app six minutes after your deployA concurrent deploy silently stripped a tab from the live app six minutes after ours.7 min
- VideoChecking for a concurrent deploy before you blame your own change6 min
- ReadingA local copy missing another team’s just-shipped workOur local copy of the app file was missing another team’s just-shipped tab. Redeploying would have deleted it.5 min
- LabLab: diff a local app file against the deployed version before redeploying9 min
- QuizCheck: blaming your own change first7 min
Thirty finding reports, sixteen distinct defects, and fourteen investigated and rejected on the record rather than silently dropped.
- VideoDe-duplicating thirty finding reports into sixteen defects7 min
- VideoRejecting a finding in writing, so it does not come back next week6 min
- ReadingFourteen findings, investigated and rejected, on the record5 min
- LabLab: write three rejection notes for plausible false positives9 min
- QuizCheck: de-duplicating and rejecting findings8 min
A confirmed finding is rarely the only instance of itself. Sweeping it across the codebase is the last step, not an optional one.
- VideoA CSV export writing formula-leading text unescapedA spreadsheet formula injection, one export at a time, until someone swept the codebase for the pattern.7 min
- VideoThe same pattern, found still live in four other components6 min
- ReadingReporting a review so a reader can tell a defect from an opinion5 min
- LabLab: sweep a confirmed finding across a codebase9 min
- QuizCheck: adversarial code review8 min
04Before you start
What you need first
Assumed knowledge and setup
- Course 4.6, or experience running more than one agent at a time.
- A repository you may review, and permission to read its deployment history.
- Course 2.7 helps. Several of the findings in this course are missing tests.
Before this course
05Who teaches it
Elliot Saha
Co-founder, Chief Technology Officer
Platform architecture, custom Apex and Lightning Web Components, AI systems, and the Academy platform itself.
06Reviews
No learner reviews yet
This course has not been taken by enough people to publish an honest rating, and we will not print invented quotes on a page that sells verification discipline. Here is what we can evidence instead.
- Assessment
- Lesson checks onlyThis course carries lesson checks and issues no certificate.
- Curriculum version
- 2026.1You enrol into a version. Content changes do not move you mid-course, and your required-lesson count is snapshotted at enrollment.
- Refunds
- 14 daysAn individual purchase can be refunded within 14 days if you have completed less than 20% of the lessons. Team seats are refundable before they are assigned. From the Academy terms.
Start 4.10
This course is in development and not yet open for enrolment. The courses open now are listed in the catalogue.
- 3 hr estimated effort, labs included
- A ShareCo certificate is not a Salesforce certification