| name | review-transform |
| description | Run the full shared Codex review checklist against a transform. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or check a transform for correctness, performance, or API consistency. |
Review Transform
Run these checks in order. Report issues with severity: 🔴 Critical, 🟡 Important, 🟢 Suggestion.
1. Dead Code (🔴 Critical)
- Any methods defined but never called within the class or externally
- Unused imports at the top of the file
- Unreachable branches (
if False:, conditions that can never be true)
2. Correctness
- Mathematical/logical errors in the transform
- Off-by-one errors in coordinate handling
- Incorrect dtype preservation (uint8 in → uint8 out, float32 in → float32 out)
- BBox/keypoint coordinate correctness after spatial transforms
- Do not request 2D grayscale compatibility for Compose paths: images and volume data are channel-last with explicit
channels (
(H,W,C), (N,H,W,C), (D,H,W,C)), and grayscale is (H,W,1).
- Never auto-detect bbox type from column count — type comes from
BboxParams.bbox_type
- For OBB: never use raw
cv2.minAreaRect output; use cv2.boxPoints then polygons_to_obb
3. Mechanical AX contracts (🔴 Critical)
Run pre-commit run check-ax-rules --all-files first. Report a failing AXG diagnostic exactly; otherwise record
that the hook passed. Keep the deterministic contract and its exceptions in
docs/contributing/coding_guidelines.md.
Use human review for what the hook cannot decide: whether constructor fields express a coherent public API, whether
validators preserve intended semantics, and whether a proposed functional operation belongs in Albucore.
4. Sampling design (🔴 Critical)
Review the policy and replay boundary, not the hook's syntax checks:
- What is sampled per invocation, and which constructor fields remain policy rather than realized state?
- Does target-dependent sampling declare its required data and produce the same result for the same invocation seed?
- Does
applied_config record every realized constructor value needed for reconstruction and clear a conflicting source
policy field?
- Is
ReplayProfile.EXACT claimed only when the emitted configuration captures every output-changing random value?
- Does the reconstructed transform execute on fresh equivalent data without mutating caller-owned inputs?
Read docs/design/applied-config-replay-contracts.md when a finding concerns constructor serialization, applied
configuration, or ReplayCompose rather than local sampling logic.
5. Type Safety (🔴 Critical)
6. Performance (🟡 Important)
Read ../performance-optimization/SKILL.md and its required reference completely before reviewing this section.
Report only an applicable missed candidate: work that can be deleted, an existing Albucore primitive, an unsafe
allocation or conversion, an unexamined backend, or setup that can be shared across a batch. Tie the finding to the
affected public route and benchmark evidence; do not request an optimization merely because its pattern is generally
faster.
7. Documentation (🟡 Important)
Use docstring-deep-dive for public-docstring quality. Review whether the description lets a user choose the transform,
and whether each example demonstrates the targets and configuration that the transform actually supports.
8. Test Coverage (🟡 Important)
- Does every public constructor mode have a named registry case, including mutually exclusive behavior?
- Do declared targets, bbox types, metadata prerequisites, and genuine channel restrictions produce the expected
generated target-profile pairs without class-name branches or skips?
- Does a focused test state a stronger semantic property than the generated cluster already covers?
- Does replay cross strict JSON, reconstruct publicly, and execute on fresh data at the declared strength?
Use docs/design/transform-target-contracts.md and docs/design/applied-config-replay-contracts.md for the exact
registry and profile contracts.
9. Code Quality (🟢 Suggestion)
Reporting Format
## Review: <TransformName>
### 🔴 Critical
- **Dead code**: `_unused_method` is never called (line 42)
- **AXG diagnostic**: report the exact hook rule and location (for example, `AXG008`)
### 🟡 Important
- **Performance**: The public Compose route has no baseline comparison for the proposed LUT candidate
- **Docs**: Example does not explain the transform's target semantics
### 🟢 Suggestions
- Consider using relative `noise_range` instead of absolute pixel values
