code-review-protocol

name	code-review-protocol
description	Structured, report-only review across correctness, safety, patterns, coverage, and scope with host-native reviewer routing.

Code Review Protocol

Review is an evidence-producing operation, not standing permission to edit. Read ../../references/workflows/protocol.md, then review the requested diff across the five dimensions below.

Dimensions

1. Correctness — Does it work? Logic errors, race conditions, off-by-one, type mismatches.
2. Safety — Edge cases, auth bypass, data leakage, injection, money-path errors.
3. Patterns — Follows project conventions? Naming, error handling, logging, module structure.
4. Coverage — Tests added/updated? Edge cases covered? Snapshot drift explained?
5. Scope — Touches only declared files? No drive-by changes.

See references/review-dimensions.md for full rubric.

Procedure

1. Resolve the declared scope, intent/spec, base ref, target ref, changed files, and focused outcomes. Compute the diff from refs when possible.
2. Read project instructions and every changed file needed to understand the diff. Do not widen into unrelated cleanup.
3. Score each dimension PASS, NEEDS_FIX, or NEEDS_REVIEW using references/review-dimensions.md.
4. Emit the structured verdict below and route it through references/verdict-routing.md.
5. Stop. Only an explicit --fix or user go-word authorizes a separate remediation pass. A NEEDS_FIX score does not authorize edits or a commit.

Verdict

{
  "verdict": "PASS | CONDITIONAL_PASS | FAIL",
  "confidence": 0.9,
  "blast_radius": "isolated | file | module | cross-cutting | dependency-graph",
  "dimensions": {
    "correctness": "PASS | NEEDS_FIX | NEEDS_REVIEW",
    "safety": "PASS | NEEDS_FIX | NEEDS_REVIEW",
    "patterns": "PASS | NEEDS_FIX | NEEDS_REVIEW",
    "coverage": "PASS | NEEDS_FIX | NEEDS_REVIEW",
    "scope": "PASS | NEEDS_FIX | NEEDS_REVIEW"
  },
  "issues": [
    {
      "severity": "critical | high | medium | low",
      "file": "path",
      "line": 1,
      "title": "short title",
      "description": "evidence and impact",
      "suggested_fix": "specific remediation"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "concise result"
}

PASS means no substantive issue. CONDITIONAL_PASS means bounded, non-critical issues with a safe disposition. FAIL means a critical/high issue or an unresolved concern that makes acceptance unsafe. Zero issues is valid.

Reviewer adapter

• Native Codex review defaults to the configured gpt-5.6-sol, high-effort route. Do not spawn an external reviewer unless the user explicitly selects one.
• Claude Code retains its command/agent/project reviewer configuration. The protocol does not declare a universal Opus reviewer.
• An external reviewer is an additional explicit lens. Record its identity and keep its evidence distinct from the native verdict.