old-python-code-review

name	old-python-code-review
description	Single-pass Python correctness, security, and style review on demand; not for multi-reviewer audits before merge (use audit-code-reviewer for that).

Old Python Code Review

Workflow

1. Apply repo-rules-reader to the requested repo rule files. For the default review baseline, read AGENTS.md, docs/REPO_STYLE.md, docs/PYTHON_STYLE.md, docs/PYTEST_STYLE.md when present, and docs/CHANGELOG.md.
2. Extract the review-relevant rules, especially how to run Python, Python style, pytest style, repo workflow rules, and the latest changelog entry.
3. Inspect changed files first (git diff, git status --short), then inspect related call sites.
4. If the repo has docs/active_plans/, identify the active plan document(s) that govern the change. Otherwise, skip plan-conformance steps.
5. If an active plan exists, map code and tests to plan requirements, acceptance criteria, and stated constraints. Otherwise, skip this step.
6. Prioritize findings by severity: plan mismatch/regressions when applicable, correctness/safety, then maintainability.
7. Provide concrete, minimal fixes with before/after examples when a fix is straightforward.
8. Flag uncertainty explicitly and ask targeted review questions for unclear logic or contracts.

Review Output Contract

• Report findings first, ordered by severity.
• For each finding include:
  • Severity (P1 critical, P2 high, P3 medium, P4 low)
  • File path and line reference
  • Risk and likely impact
  • Recommended change
• After findings, include:
  • Open questions
  • Test gaps and residual risk
  • Brief summary

What To Check

• Prefer design-level fixes over symptom patches; cite docs/REPO_STYLE.md when flagging this.
• Plan conformance: implementation and tests match active plan scope, ordering, and acceptance criteria.
• Plan drift: behavior changed without corresponding plan/changelog updates, or plan claims complete while code is partial.
• Correctness: edge cases, off-by-one logic, stale assumptions, API misuse, compatibility breaks.
• Security: unsafe eval/exec, command injection, path traversal, deserialization hazards, and weak validation.
• Maintainability: dead code, hidden coupling, unclear naming, duplicated logic, brittle tests.
• Python style: tabs for indentation, import module names rather than imported symbols when practical, no relative imports, direct required-key access, minimal try/except, shebangs only on runnable scripts, and source source_me.sh && python ... command examples.
• Pytest style: small deterministic tests, plain asserts, stable behavior-focused expectations, tmp_path for filesystem tests, and no assertions on dates, collection sizes, required key lists, hardcoded defaults, function names, or other fragile details.
• Performance only when materially relevant.

Fix Guidance

• Prefer small, local edits that preserve behavior unless a bug requires behavior change.
• Keep fixes aligned with repo Python style and test conventions.
• Add or adjust tests for each behavior-changing fix.