Claude finished @dguido's task —— View job

Code Review Complete

I've reviewed the documentation changes in this PR. Overall, this is a well-written addition that addresses important user questions. Here's my detailed feedback:

✅ Strengths

Technical Accuracy: Both FAQ entries are technically sound and align well with Algo's security-first philosophy. The explanations are factually correct and well-researched.

Clear Communication: The content effectively explains complex security concepts in accessible language while maintaining technical precision.

Structure: Good use of numbered lists to break down complex reasoning, making the content scannable and easy to understand.

🔍 Issues Found

Minor Technical Inconsistency

Line 51 & 58: There's a discrepancy in the cipher suite specification:

• Line 51: AES256-GCM with SHA2 and P-256
• Line 58: AES256-GCM-SHA512 with ECP384

These appear to be different configurations. Based on the CLAUDE.md context mentioning "secp384r1" for elliptic curve cryptography, the second specification (ECP384/secp384r1) seems more accurate.

Formatting Enhancement Opportunity

Lines 51-57: Consider using a more consistent list format. The current numbered list uses periods, but other FAQ entries use dashes. For consistency with the rest of the document, consider:

- **Eliminating downgrade attacks** - With no weaker ciphers available...
- **Reducing complexity** - A single, well-tested configuration...
- **Ensuring modern clients only** - This approach naturally filters...
- **Simplifying audits** - Security researchers can focus...

Content Suggestion

Line 66: The phrase "break local laws" could be softened to "violate local regulations" for a more professional tone.

✅ What's Working Well

• Table of contents integration: Both new entries are properly added and will link correctly
• Cross-referencing: Good use of issue numbers in the PR description
• Scope appropriateness: Content stays focused on Algo's specific design decisions
• Educational value: Helps users understand the "why" behind architectural choices

🎯 Recommendations

1. Clarify the cipher suite specification - Choose one consistent description and verify it matches the actual implementation
2. Consider the formatting consistency mentioned above
3. Otherwise, this is ready to merge - the content adds significant value to user documentation

Summary

This PR successfully addresses two long-standing documentation gaps with clear, technically accurate explanations. The minor issues identified don't affect the core value of the contribution. The additions will help users better understand Algo's security design philosophy and set appropriate expectations.

Recommendation: Approve with minor revisions to address the cipher suite inconsistency.