I really disagree with this too, especially given the article's next line:

> ...You’ll be forever tweaking individual lines of code, asking for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter, bikeshedding function names, and so on. At the same time, you’ll miss the opportunity to guide the AI away from architectural dead ends.

I think a good review will often do both, and understand that code happens at the line level and also the structural level. It implies a philosophy of coding that I have seen be incredibly destructive firsthand — committing a bunch of shit that no one on a team understands and no one knows how to reuse.

> for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter...

This is distinctly not the api, but an implementation detail.

Personally, i can ask colleagues to change function names, rework hierarchy, etc. But leave this exact example be, as it does not have any material difference difference - regardless of my personal preference.