review-fix

name	review-fix
description	Review a committed fix for correctness, plan follow-through, test coverage, and similar issues
argument-hint	<commit-hash> [plan-path-or-issue]

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

• The first argument is the commit hash (short or full). Replace $COMMIT with it.
• The second argument, if present, is optional plan context. It may be a local plan file path, a GitHub issue number, or a GitHub issue URL.

Fix Review

Review the fix in commit $COMMIT to assess correctness, plan follow-through when an implementation plan is available, test coverage, and whether similar issues exist elsewhere in the codebase. This formalizes the post-fix review process described in AGENTS.md:

After committing a fix, review and consider: Is it true to the design of the system? Can there be similar issues? Can we redesign the system to avoid these category of issues.

Analysis Process

Step 1: Read the Commit

Run:

git log -1 --format=fuller $COMMIT
git show $COMMIT --stat
git diff $COMMIT~1..$COMMIT

Identify: the commit message, author, files changed, lines added/removed, and the full diff. Read the complete current state of every file touched by the commit to understand surrounding context.

Step 2: Locate the Implementation Plan

Determine whether an implementation plan is available. Check, in order:

1. The optional second argument:
   • If it is a file path, read that file.
   • If it is a GitHub issue number or URL, fetch the issue body and comments.
2. Any explicit plan text included in the prompt or surrounding invocation context.
3. A related GitHub issue mentioned in the prompt, commit message, or commit trailers (for example, "issue #123", "Closes #123", or "Fixes #123"). Fetch the issue body and comments.
4. Local plan-do-review artifacts for that issue, such as data/pdr-$ISSUE/proposal_final.md, if present in the current checkout.

When reading a GitHub issue, prefer the latest ## Converged Proposal comment. If there is no converged proposal, use the issue body only if it is clearly a proposal or implementation plan. Do not treat brainstorming comments, rejected drafts, or stale proposal rounds as the final plan when a converged proposal is available.

If no reliable plan is available, set the plan follow-through verdict to NOT_AVAILABLE and continue the rest of the review unchanged. Absence of a plan is not itself a finding.

Step 3: Analyze the Problem

From the diff (what was removed or changed) and the commit message, reconstruct:

• What was the bug? Describe the incorrect behavior in concrete terms.
• What was the root cause? Why did the original code produce incorrect behavior? Trace to the specific logical error, missing condition, wrong assumption, or misunderstood invariant.
• What was the impact? What observable behavior was affected? Could this have caused state divergence, consensus failure, data corruption, or a crash?

Read the code before and after the fix. Do not guess — if the root cause is unclear, read callers, callees, and related types until you understand it.

Step 4: Analyze the Fix

Evaluate the fix along these dimensions:

• Root cause vs. symptom: Does the fix address the root cause, or does it paper over a symptom? A fix that only handles one manifestation of a deeper problem is incomplete.
• Design fit: Is the fix consistent with the system's architecture and conventions? Or does it introduce a special case, workaround, or pattern that diverges from the surrounding code?
• Correctness: Is the fix logically correct in all cases? Work through edge cases: empty inputs, zero values, overflow, maximum sizes, concurrent access, error paths.
• Side effects: Could the fix change behavior in any code path other than the one it targets? Check all callers of modified functions and all consumers of modified types.
• Parity: If the fix touches protocol, consensus, or ledger logic, verify that the fixed behavior matches stellar-core. Read the corresponding stellar-core code to confirm.

Classify the fix:

• SOUND: Correctly addresses the root cause with no concerns.
• CONCERNS: Fix is directionally correct but has issues that need attention.
• INCOMPLETE: Fix does not fully address the root cause.
• WRONG: Fix introduces new incorrect behavior.

Step 5: Evaluate Plan Follow-through

If an implementation plan is available, compare it against the commit and the current code. Extract from the plan:

• Intended outcome: What behavior or capability the plan promised.
• Required work items: Concrete tasks, code paths, tests, docs, parity checks, or operational changes the plan said to perform.
• Constraints and non-goals: Explicit limits, sequencing requirements, or things the plan said not to do.
• Deferred work: Items the plan intentionally left for follow-up.

Evaluate:

• Coverage: Did the commit implement every material required work item?
• Deviations: Did the commit take a different approach than the plan? If so, is the deviation justified by evidence discovered during implementation?
• Scope creep: Did the commit add unrelated behavior not supported by the plan or necessary for correctness?
• Deferrals: Are intentionally deferred items called out clearly, and are follow-up issues or recommendations present where needed?
• Consistency: Do tests, docs, and parity checks promised by the plan appear in the commit or have a justified omission?

Classify plan follow-through separately from fix correctness:

• FOLLOWED: The commit implements all material plan items with no unjustified deviations.
• PARTIAL: The commit implements the core plan but misses, silently defers, or weakens one or more material items.
• DIVERGED: The commit implements a materially different approach, violates a plan constraint, or leaves the plan's intended outcome unsatisfied.
• NOT_AVAILABLE: No reliable implementation plan was found.

A fix can be logically sound while still PARTIAL or DIVERGED relative to its plan. Conversely, if the plan itself was wrong or unsafe, do not reward blind compliance — explain the plan problem and evaluate whether the commit made a justified correction.

Step 6: Verify Test Coverage

Check whether the commit includes regression tests:

• If tests are included: Read each test. Would it have failed before the fix and passed after? A test that passes both before and after is not a regression test. Assess whether the tests cover the specific edge case that triggered the bug, or only the happy path.
• If tests are NOT included: Flag this as a gap. Describe what test(s) should exist: the setup, the operation, and the assertion.

Also assess existing test coverage of the affected code:

• Run cargo test -p <crate> -- --list to see what tests exist for the crate.
• Read tests in the affected module to understand what paths are exercised.
• Identify any untested code paths through the fixed code.

Step 7: Search for Similar Issues

Use subagents (Task tool with explore type) to scan the codebase for patterns similar to the one that was buggy. The search strategy depends on the root cause:

• Same function pattern: If the bug was a wrong condition or missing check, search for the same pattern in other locations.
• Same API misuse: If the bug was incorrect use of an API or type, search for other callers of that API.
• Same category of mistake: If the bug was (e.g.) an off-by-one, integer overflow, missing None check, wrong enum variant, or stale cache, search for the same class of mistake across the codebase.

For each potential similar issue found, assess:

• Is it actually the same class of bug, or superficially similar but correct?
• What is the risk if it is a real bug?
• What file:line is it at?

Do not report false positives. Read the surrounding code to confirm before including a finding.

Step 8: Identify Refactoring Opportunities

Consider whether the code can be restructured to make this category of bug impossible or unlikely:

• Type-system enforcement: Could a newtype, enum, or const generic prevent the invalid state that caused the bug?
• Shared helper: Could the correct logic be extracted into a single function that all call sites use, eliminating the chance of one site getting it wrong?
• Invariant enforcement: Could a debug assertion, runtime check, or constructor invariant catch this class of error early?
• API redesign: Could the API be changed so that the incorrect usage is not expressible? (e.g., builder pattern, state machine types)

Only suggest refactors that are proportionate to the risk. A one-off typo does not justify a type-system overhaul.

Output Format (review mode)

# Fix Review: $COMMIT_SHORT_HASH

## Commit Summary
- **Hash**: full hash
- **Message**: commit message
- **Author**: author
- **Files changed**: list with line counts

## Problem Analysis
- **Bug**: What was wrong
- **Root cause**: Why the original code was incorrect
- **Impact**: What observable behavior was affected

## Fix Analysis
- **Approach**: What the fix does
- **Correctness**: Does it address the root cause?
- **Design fit**: Is it consistent with the system's design?
- **Edge cases**: Any cases not covered?
- **Parity**: Does it maintain stellar-core parity? (if applicable)
- **Side effects**: Any unintended behavioral changes?
- **Verdict**: SOUND / CONCERNS / INCOMPLETE / WRONG — summary

## Plan Follow-through
- **Plan source**: Prompt context / file path / GitHub issue/comment / Not available
- **Plan verdict**: FOLLOWED / PARTIAL / DIVERGED / NOT_AVAILABLE
- **Planned work**: Material plan items extracted from the plan
- **Implemented work**: Which planned items the commit completed
- **Missing or changed work**: Planned items omitted, weakened, or implemented differently
- **Justified deviations**: Deviations or deferrals that are supported by evidence

## Test Coverage
- **Regression test included**: Yes/No
- **Test quality**: Would it have caught the original bug?
- **Existing coverage**: Are other paths through this code tested?
- **Gaps**: Any untested scenarios that should be covered

## Similar Issues

| # | Location | Pattern | Risk | Confirmed |
|---|----------|---------|------|-----------|

(Locations in the codebase with the same pattern that might harbor the same
class of bug. "Confirmed" = Yes if you read the code and verified it is a real
issue, Likely if the pattern matches but you could not fully confirm.)

If no similar issues found, state: "No similar issues identified."

## Refactoring Opportunities

(Concrete suggestions for redesigning the code to prevent this category of
issue. Include file:line references and sketch the proposed change.)

If no refactoring warranted, state: "No refactoring needed — the fix is
proportionate and the pattern is isolated."

## Recommendations

Prioritized list of follow-up actions (if any), including any missing plan items
or unjustified deviations that should be fixed or filed as follow-up work.

Guidelines

• Be precise. Cite file:line for every claim.
• Do not speculate — if you cannot determine whether something is a bug, read more code until you can. If you still cannot, say so explicitly.
• Read the actual code, not just the diff. The diff shows what changed; the surrounding code shows whether the change is correct.
• Treat the implementation plan as review evidence, not as a substitute for correctness. If following the plan would be wrong, flag the plan issue and assess whether the commit's deviation is justified.
• Cite the plan source for every plan follow-through claim. If the source is a GitHub issue comment, cite the issue/comment context; if it is a file, cite file:line.
• Focus on observable behavior. Different code structure with identical behavior is not a finding.
• If the commit touches protocol, consensus, or ledger logic, always verify against stellar-core.
• Do not inflate findings. If the fix is sound, the tests are adequate, and there are no similar issues, say so. A clean report is a valid outcome.
• Use subagents for codebase-wide searches to keep the analysis thorough without overwhelming context.