Code Reviewer: Complete FRE-4806 Datadog/Sentry implementation plan review

- Reviewed 869-line technical analysis document
- Found 2 P2 and 2 P3 non-blocking issues
- Assigned to Security Reviewer for final approval
- Daily note and heartbeat log updated

agents/code-reviewer/HEARTBEAT.md

@@ -501,3 +501,118 @@ When you complete a code review:
 - Assigned to Security Reviewer for final approval
 
 **Status**: Done - Second-pass review passed, assigned to Security Reviewer
+
+### 2026-05-10 (Sunday) — FRE-4763 Re-Review
+
+**Issue**: FRE-4763 — Implement automatic auth token refresh on 401 responses
+
+**Action Taken**:
+- Checked out issue for re-review after commit `619a804`
+- Verified all P0-P3 fixes from first-pass review
+- Verified CTO's Clone() context correction
+
+**Verified Fixes**:
+- ✅ P0: Auth header updated after token refresh via `GetSession()` + `SetAuthHeader()` (line 133)
+- ✅ P2: Unconditional `req.WithContext(ctx)` instead of fragile `context.Background()` check (line 105)
+- ✅ Fix: Corrected `req.Clone(ctx)` - actually uses `req.WithContext(ctx)` as intended
+- ✅ Cleanup: Removed unused `checkAuthenticated()` and `NewRequestWithContext()` helpers
+
+**Implementation Review**:
+- Auto-refresh on 401: Properly implemented with error handling
+- Context support: All API methods support `context.Context` via `DoWithContext`
+- Retry logic: Correctly clones request and updates auth header before retry
+- Rate limiting: Properly tracks both original and retry requests
+- Error messages: Clear and descriptive for debugging
+
+**Code Quality**:
+- ✅ Clean separation of concerns (refresh logic in SessionRefresher interface)
+- ✅ Proper error wrapping with `%w` for error chain preservation
+- ✅ Thread-safe auth header updates via mutex
+- ✅ Response body properly closed before retry
+- ✅ Follows Go best practices for HTTP client implementation
+
+**Result**:
+- All first-pass findings successfully addressed
+- Implementation matches go-proton-api pattern (client.go:doRes() -> authRefresh())
+- Code is production-ready
+
+**Assigned to**: Security Reviewer for final approval
+
+**Status**: Done - Passed re-review, assigned to Security Reviewer
+
+### 2026-05-11 (Monday) — FRE-5134 Local Race Discovery Review
+
+**Issue**: FRE-5134 — Nessa Phase 3.2: Local race discovery
+
+**Context**:
+- Issue was in `in_review` status after Founding Engineer completed implementation
+- Part of Nessa Phase 3 (Premium Features) under parent FRE-4710
+- Required property corrections to align with Race model
+
+**Action Taken**:
+- Checked out issue and reviewed all implementation files
+- Verified property alignment with Race model (raceDate, distanceKm, terrainType, participantCount)
+- Reviewed actor-based concurrency implementation
+- Verified rate limiting (5 requests per 60 seconds)
+- Analyzed relevance scoring algorithm
+- Reviewed unit test coverage (20+ test cases)
+
+**Files Reviewed**:
+- `RaceDiscoveryService.swift` (318 lines) - Core service with actor-based concurrency
+- `RaceDiscoveryView.swift` (165 lines) - SwiftUI interface
+- `RaceDiscoveryViewModel.swift` (105 lines) - Business logic
+- `RaceDiscoveryViewModelTests.swift` (282 lines) - Unit tests
+- `Race.swift` (186 lines) - Model verification
+
+**Findings**:
+- ✅ All property names correctly aligned with Race model
+- ✅ Actor-based concurrency ensures thread safety
+- ✅ Rate limiting properly implemented
+- ✅ Comprehensive test coverage (20+ tests)
+- ✅ Clean separation of concerns with protocol-based dependencies
+- ✅ Relevance scoring algorithm (distance 40%, location 30%, date 15%, popularity 15%)
+
+**Minor Observations**:
+- ⚠️ `RaceDiscoveryRequest` struct defined but not fully utilized
+- ⚠️ Supporting types (CalendarEvent, Location) defined in service file
+- ⚠️ Some hardcoded defaults in discoverNearbyRaces() method
+
+**Result**:
+- Code review complete - APPROVED
+- No blocking issues found
+- Implementation meets acceptance criteria
+
+**Assigned to**: Security Reviewer (036d6925-3aac-4939-a0f0-22dc44e618bc) for final security audit
+
+**Status**: Done - Passed code review, assigned to Security Reviewer
+
+**Review Document**: `/home/mike/code/FrenoCorp/agents/code-reviewer/reviews/FRE-5134-review.md`
+
+**Heartbeat Run**: $PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID
+
+### 2026-05-11 (Monday) — FRE-4806 Review
+
+**Issue**: FRE-4806 — Datadog APM + Sentry Integration Implementation
+
+**Action Taken**:
+- Reviewed comprehensive technical analysis document (869 lines)
+- Analyzed implementation plan covering 4 phases:
+  - Phase 1: Datadog APM integration (tracing, middleware, DB/Redis/HTTP tracing)
+  - Phase 2: Sentry integration (Node.js, React/Next.js, error boundaries)
+  - Phase 3: Unified observability (correlation, metrics, alerting)
+  - Phase 4: Testing and validation
+- Verified architecture decisions (ADR-0042)
+- Reviewed code examples and configurations
+
+**Findings**:
+- P2: Complex correlation middleware may need additional testing for edge cases
+- P2: Unified metrics class creates tight coupling between Datadog and Sentry
+- P3: Some code snippets have minor syntax issues (undefined variables)
+- P3: Sentry alerting configuration is incomplete
+
+**Result**:
+- Code review complete — plan is sound with minor P2/P3 issues
+- Assigned to Security Reviewer for final approval
+
+**Status**: Done — Passed with minor issues, assigned to Security Reviewer
+