docs: add Aegis SDK reviewer quality checklist

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -55,3 +55,6 @@ When you add or change a public method on `ComplianceModule`, `AssetModule`, `In
 - [ ] Anything the source leaves ambiguous, incomplete, or marked with a `// TODO` is called out as an explicit note rather than assumed or omitted.
 - [ ] If the change affects compliance/whitelist-gated behavior, the compliance disclaimer at the top of `docs/api-reference.md` still accurately describes it.
 - [ ] If the change affects contract event decoding, follow the checklist in `docs/contract-events.md` (edge cases, unknown fallback, and security/compliance assumptions).
+
+## Code Review Standard
+All pull requests submitted to Aegis SDK are evaluated against our [Reviewer Quality Checklist](docs/REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md). Please review this document before submitting your PR to ensure seamless review and approval.

README.md

@@ -145,6 +145,6 @@ Before submitting a PR, follow our [Test-First Contribution Guide](docs/test-fir
 ### Review Process
 PRs submitted to this repository are reviewed against our [Pull Request Reviewer Checklist](docs/reviewer-checklist.md), which covers code implementation, unit test coverage, CI build compatibility, API reference documentation, security/compliance, and acceptance criteria.
 
-### Acceptance Criteria Traceability
-Every PR **must** include an [acceptance criteria traceability table](docs/acceptance-criteria-traceability.md) that maps SDK modules, tests, docs, and behaviour verification to each acceptance criterion from the linked issue. This makes evaluation straightforward for maintainers and GrantFox reviewers.
 
+## Maintainer & Reviewer Guidance
+For quality assurance standards, CI checks, and PR acceptance rules, see the [Reviewer Quality Checklist](docs/REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md).

docs/REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Aegis SDK Reviewer Quality Checklist
+
+This checklist is designed for Aegis SDK maintainers and reviewers to ensure high implementation standards, test reliability, and overall quality before merging any pull request.
+
+## 1. Scope & Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] **Acceptance Criteria Met**: Does the PR directly fulfill all criteria defined in the linked issue?
+- [ ] **No Scope Creep**: Are changes strictly focused on the issue without unnecessary refactoring or unrelated edits?
+
+## 2. Implementation & Architecture Quality
+- [ ] **Code Quality**: Does the code adhere to project styling, naming conventions, and TypeScript/Rust standards?
+- [ ] **Error Handling**: Are errors, edge cases, and unexpected inputs handled gracefully?
+- [ ] **SDK API Design**: Are exports, public methods, and signatures backwards-compatible or properly versioned?
+- [ ] **Security & Performance**: Are there any exposed secrets, memory leaks, or inefficient operations?
+
+## 3. Test Coverage & Evidence
+- [ ] **Unit / Integration Tests**: Are there unit or integration tests covering the new functionality or bug fix?
+- [ ] **Test Execution**: Do all existing and newly added tests pass cleanly?
+- [ ] **Test Evidence**: Has the author provided command outputs or logs demonstrating test execution?
+
+## 4. CI/CD & Build Verification
+- [ ] **CI Pipeline Green**: Are all automated CI checks (linter, build, matrix tests) passing?
+- [ ] **Build Check**: Does `npm run build` (or `cargo build`) complete without warnings or errors?
+
+## 5. Documentation & Developer Experience
+- [ ] **Docs Updated**: Are inline JSDoc/RustDoc comments and explicit documentation in `docs/` updated?
+- [ ] **README Updated**: Is the `README.md` updated if public APIs, usage patterns, or configuration changed?
+- [ ] **Changelog / Release Notes**: Are breaking changes or notable updates logged if applicable?