| name | ocr-review |
| description | High-precision code review inspired by Alibaba Open Code Review. Script-driven pre-processing, per-file isolated review, three-layer false-positive reduction. |
| user-invocable | true |
| version | 0.4.0 |
| license | CC0-1.0 |
OCR Review
High-precision code review inspired by Alibaba Open Code Review.
Core insight: deterministic engineering for precision-critical steps beats prompt engineering alone. File selection, filtering, checklist routing, and context composition are handled by scripts. LLM judgment is reserved for code understanding and issue identification.
Limitations: This is not a static analyzer. It does not guarantee full coverage. It intentionally trades recall for precision. For security-critical review, pair with tests and SAST tools.
Step 1: Run preprocess
<skill-dir>/preprocess [diff-target]
- No argument: diffs against merge-base of main/master
staged / HEAD / branch name / commit SHA / range (a..b)--include-tests: include test files (excluded by default)
Read the output. Key fields:
diff_base: the git ref to pass to file-context[REVIEW] section: one line per reviewable file — path status changed_lines plan_needed checklists
If reviewable_count: 0, report "No reviewable files changed." and stop.
Step 2: Per-file review
For each file in [REVIEW], run:
<skill-dir>/file-context <diff_base> <filepath> <checklists...>
This outputs the complete review input: other changed files, unified diff, and composed checklists — all structured as XML-like blocks. Read the output and review it.
Plan phase (if plan_needed = yes)
For files with >50 changed lines, produce a brief plan before reviewing:
- One-sentence change summary
- Risk areas ordered by severity (high > medium > low)
- Which areas need additional context to confirm
Use this as advisory guidance — not binding.
Review
Review the diff against the composed checklist from <review_checklist>. Gather additional context (Read file, Bash grep/find) only to confirm or reject a suspected issue.
Scope rules
DO:
- Focus on newly added and modified code.
- Verify suspected issues via tools before reporting.
- Be objective — judge based on facts and logic, not assumptions.
- Report nothing if no clear issues exist.
DO NOT:
- Comment on deleted code (reference context only).
- Comment on correct or unchanged code.
- Comment on non-functional elements: comments, annotations, metadata, formatting.
- Report issues discovered in other files while gathering context.
- Report speculative issues. If not confident, suppress.
Step 3: Self-filter ("falsify, not verify")
After all findings, evaluate each as a skeptic trying to disprove it. Remove any that fails:
- In changed code? If the issue is in unchanged diff context, remove.
- Supported by diff or inspected context? If it relies on assumptions about unread code, remove.
- Possible false positive from missing context? If the code might be correct given unseen context (caller handles error, framework guarantee), remove.
- Fix practical and local? If the fix requires changes outside this diff, demote or remove.
- Style-only? Unless it causes correctness, security, or operational risk, remove.
Prefer false negatives over false positives. When in doubt, suppress.
Output format
Per finding:
### [severity] path/to/file.ext:L15-L20 -- Short title
**Issue:** What is wrong.
**Why it matters:** Concrete consequence.
**Suggested fix:**
```diff
- existing problematic code
+ suggested replacement
Severity: `critical` | `high` | `medium` — do not report `low`.
Summary:
Review summary
Files reviewed: N
Findings: N (X critical, Y high, Z medium)
[findings grouped by file]
No findings: `No issues found. Looks good to me.`
