| name | review-code-quality |
| description | Review a declared code change or code scope with evidence-backed findings and five independent quality scores. Use for pull requests, diffs, commits, patches, file sets, modules, bug fixes, refactors, and implementation-review requests. |
Review Code Quality
Inspect the declared review subject and produce a concise report using
templates/review-report.md.
Workflow
- Bind the review to the declared diff, commit, pull request, patch, file set,
or module and identify its expected behavior.
- Read enough surrounding code, tests, and repository conventions to judge
the change in context.
- Report only actionable findings. For each finding, give severity, location,
observed problem, impact, and correction direction.
- Mark an uncertain concern as a verification gap. Keep unrelated
pre-existing debt separate from the scored change.
- Score all five dimensions independently with integer values from 1 to 5.
- Return the verdict. Do not edit the reviewed code.
Five Scores
- Correctness: expected behavior, edge cases, state changes, and error
semantics.
- Simplicity and readability: clear control flow, necessary complexity,
duplication, dead code, and avoidable abstraction.
- Error handling and fallback integrity: swallowed failures, false
success, silent degradation, unjustified defaults, unbounded retries, and
unobservable or untested fallback.
- Design and maintainability: responsibility boundaries, coupling,
change isolation, consistency with repository patterns, and future repair
cost.
- Tests and risk control: meaningful verification plus relevant security,
data, performance, concurrency, compatibility, and operational risk.
Use the same scale for every dimension:
5: reliable and clear; no substantive issue found.4: good; only minor improvement remains.3: acceptable; clear quality debt or verification gap remains.2: material problem; change is required.1: severe or systemic failure.
Do not deduct without evidence. Do not score code length by itself. Do not
penalize a fallback merely for existing; penalize it when it is implicit,
unbounded, contract-changing, unobservable, or untested. Avoid counting one
problem as several independent defects.
Verdict
approve: no required-change finding and all scores are 4 or 5.approve_with_comments: no critical or major finding, no score below 3,
and at least one minor issue or score of 3.changes_required: any critical or major finding, or any score of 1 or 2.blocked: the review subject, expected behavior, or essential evidence is
missing or cannot be inspected.
The total out of 25 is informational. Never let it override the verdict rules.
