As mentioned in comments, SCRUM is a process/methodology for executing functional work and not in the weeds on what "proper" work is/isn't. That being said there are certain checkpoints that need to be adhered to and I think you are touching on some of those, so this answer is scoped more to the touch points of reviews during SCRUM and not detailed specifics.
Each Backlog item should have acceptance criteria prior to being developed against. It should have also gone through a sprint planning activity. As the team is responsible for each piece of functionality collectively, then the following should happen for each piece of functionality:
- Developed for release by end of sprint
- Code Reviewed according to coding standards
- Functionality reviewed/verified (code, testing, demonstration) according to description in backlog and acceptance criteria verification
- Sprint Review of fully verified content.
With the above being said and the full team working it, someone should compare the developed code to the acceptance criteria in a code review and QA should test the coded functionality against the acceptance criteria to ensure it functions to spec. The Product Owner will also review in the sprint review to ensure they are happy with the fully implemented and verified functionality.
As far as "who does what" the SCRUM master should be aligning skill sets with task activities to best utilize each skill set in the team to the make the best team possible for producing the best product possible.
In short if the SCRUM master thinks you should be the one to do it, then there is probably a good reason for it. Discuss with your SCRUM master if you have any concerns or believe that a particular task item is better suited elsewhere.
Should someone compare acceptance criteria during a code review? Absolutely
Is that someone QA or another Dev or Sys Eng? Ask the SCRUM Master for assignments.
BTW - Reviewer makes comments and implementer should be responsible for fixing it...so not following the
What I believe: In future, if someone looks at some block of code and feels WTF, then Code Reviewer is responsible more than implementer.
comment. Especially seeing the implementation should be based on the backlog item with acceptance criteria just like the reviewer is basing the review on...