| name | code-review |
| description | How to review a slice of a code repository with high precision — confidence-scored findings, project-guideline compliance, and Karpathy behavioral guidelines (simplicity, surgical scope, surfaced assumptions). Use when reviewing or auditing source files. |
| license | MIT |
| tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob"] |
Code Review
Synthesized for loomcycle exp7 from Claude Code's code-reviewer agent + code-review command +
the karpathy-guidelines skill. Methodology for reviewing a slice of a repository with high
precision and minimal false positives.
What to look for
- Project-guideline compliance. Honor the repo's own rules (e.g.
CLAUDE.md): import patterns,
error handling, logging, naming, platform compatibility, testing conventions.
- Bugs that bite in practice. Logic errors, nil/undefined handling, race conditions, resource
leaks, unchecked errors, security issues (injection, secret handling, authz gaps), performance.
- Quality. Significant duplication, missing critical error handling, inadequate test coverage.
Confidence scoring (the precision lever)
Rate each candidate issue 0–100:
- 0 false positive / pre-existing; 25 maybe; 50 real but minor/nit; 75 verified, will
hit in practice / guideline-backed; 100 certain, frequent.
- Only report issues with confidence ≥ 80. Quality over quantity — a short list of true issues
beats a long list of nits.
Karpathy behavioral guidelines (apply to the review itself)
- Surface assumptions. If a finding depends on an assumption (caller behavior, invariant), say
so. If unsure, lower the confidence rather than over-claim.
- Simplicity. Flag overcomplication: speculative abstractions, unrequested configurability,
error handling for impossible cases, 200 lines that could be 50.
- Surgical scope. Judge whether changes touch only what they must; flag drive-by edits/refactors
and orphaned (newly-unused) imports/vars. Don't demand rewrites of code that isn't broken.
- Verifiable. Prefer findings a developer can act on + verify (a failing case, a concrete fix).
Output per issue
file:line · severity (Critical | Important) · confidence · one-line problem · concrete fix.
Group by severity. If no ≥80 issues in the slice, say so with a one-line "meets standards" summary.
