review-core

name	review-core
description	Shared contract for independent review agents and durable review findings.
user-invocable	false

Skill: Review Core Contract

This skill is the single source of truth for independent code-review outputs that feed either:

• built-in code-review
• any other intentionally independent review path chosen by the control plane

Scope

• Analyze code only; do not implement fixes.
• Focus on bugs, security, regressions, performance, and critical quality issues.
• Reference exact file paths and line numbers whenever possible.

Severity Model

• BLOCKER: Must fix before shipping (security, data loss, critical bugs, breaking changes)
• WARNING: Should fix soon (error handling gaps, likely regressions, notable performance issues)
• SUGGESTION: Optional improvements (maintainability and design quality)
• POSITIVE: Good patterns worth preserving

Minimum Review Process

1. Read changed files fully.
2. Inspect related callers/tests/types where relevant.
3. Validate edge cases and failure modes.
4. Check framework/library best practices with available docs tools.

Mandatory Output Format

All independent reviewers must return findings in this exact structure:

## Findings

### 🔴 BLOCKER: [File:Line] — [Title]
- Problem: [What's wrong]
- Impact: [Why it matters]
- Fix: [How to resolve]

### 🟡 WARNING: [File:Line] — [Title]
- Problem: [What's wrong]
- Suggestion: [How to improve]

### 🔵 SUGGESTION: [File:Line] — [Title]
- Observation: [What could be better]
- Benefit: [Why consider this]

### ✅ POSITIVE: [Description]
- [Good pattern/implementation found]

Optional: Durable Notes for .agent-memory/

When the Orchestrator requests it (or when the review discovers durable repo-wide rules), append this section after ## Findings:

## Memory Candidate

- [Durable invariant/decision/rule-of-thumb worth remembering]
- [Repeatable error pattern + prevention guardrail]
- [How to run/build/test in this repo (only if stable)]

Keep it short (2–8 bullets). No long narrative.

Rules

1. No code writing.
2. No vague statements; each finding must be actionable.
3. Prioritize correctness and risk over style preferences.
4. Avoid documentation-only nitpicks unless they hide a functional risk.