It is fairly common for review requests to be for homework or interview practice questions.
For example there's a fairly steady stream of python tic-tac-toe games which I'm basically convinced fall into this category. These tic-tac-toe implementations consistently have certain slightly strange design decisions, such as using separate functions for the two players and using mutual recursion to swap between them. Without fail, the reviewer will say something like "Your play_X and play_O functions are basically identical. You should rewrite the code to have just one play function and take a parameter." To be clear I completely agree with, and have given, this advice.
However, Occam's razor tells me that there is some teacher or textbook or course or something providing the template for the Tic-tac-toe game, complete with weird mutually recursive design decision. Potentially, half of our suggestions are irrelevant because the asker has to follow the template (although probably helpful from an educational perspective in suggesting criticisms of it) Further, it seems that at least part of what we're reviewing is not the asker's own code, which has implications with the rules.
Is there anything that needs special considerations in handling (known) template based questions like this?