i disagree. fundamentally the point of these checklists is to standardize the sorts of things you evaluate during the code review. if feedback is inconsistent, you end up seeing different standards applied to several parts of the codebase which can (and does) manifest itself as an inconsistent product.
the overall appearance of the checklist does make it seem like it would be problematic, but i think the author makes a good point of showing that they act as a template for the reviewer rather than as strict set of guidelines.
in a situation where "we're all consenting adults here," having a set of things to evaluate features or code style makes it easy for anyone to know what to expect when checking in a change or when reviewing one for the first time. it may not work for you, but it certainly adds consistency when they're used non-dogmatically.
the overall appearance of the checklist does make it seem like it would be problematic, but i think the author makes a good point of showing that they act as a template for the reviewer rather than as strict set of guidelines.
in a situation where "we're all consenting adults here," having a set of things to evaluate features or code style makes it easy for anyone to know what to expect when checking in a change or when reviewing one for the first time. it may not work for you, but it certainly adds consistency when they're used non-dogmatically.