compact-core-compact-review

name	compact-core:compact-review
description	This skill should be used when reviewing Compact smart contract code, TypeScript witness implementations, or test files for a Midnight project. Applies when a user asks to "review my Compact contract", "audit this smart contract", "check my Midnight code", or "run a code review checklist". Provides category-specific checklists covering privacy, security, cryptographic correctness, token economics, concurrency, compilation, performance, architecture, code quality, testing, and documentation, plus mechanical verification via /midnight-verify:verify.
version	0.1.0

Compact Code Review Checklists

This skill contains review checklists for 10 categories of Compact smart contract review. Each reference file provides a focused checklist for one review category.

How to Use

The assigned review category determines which reference file to load. Load the reference file for your assigned category and apply every checklist item to the code under review.

Category Reference Map

Category	Reference File	Focus
Privacy & Disclosure	references/privacy-review.md	disclose() usage, witness data leaks, Set vs MerkleTree, persistentHash vs persistentCommit, salt reuse, conditional disclosure
Security & Cryptographic Correctness	references/security-review.md	Access control, hash/commit usage, domain separation, nullifiers, commitments, Merkle paths, error leakage
Token & Economic Security	references/token-security-review.md	Double-spend, overflow, unsafe transfers, missing receiveShielded, authorization
Concurrency & Contention	references/concurrency-review.md	Read-then-write patterns, Counter ops, transaction conflicts
Compilation & Type Safety	references/compilation-review.md	Deprecated syntax, return types, disclosure errors, casts, generics
Performance & Circuit Efficiency	references/performance-review.md	Proof cost, ledger reads, MerkleTree depth, redundant computation, loops
Architecture, State Design & Composability	references/architecture-review.md	ADT selection, depth planning, visibility, modules, decomposition
Code Quality & Best Practices	references/code-quality-review.md	Naming, complexity, dead code, stdlib hallucinations, idioms
Testing Adequacy	references/testing-review.md	Edge cases, negative tests, private state testing, witness mocks
Documentation	references/documentation-review.md	Circuit docs, witness contracts, ledger semantics

Verification

Every review MUST include running /midnight-verify:verify on the contract:

/midnight-verify:verify <contract.compact>

For contracts with TypeScript witness implementations:

/midnight-verify:verify <contract.compact> <witnesses.ts>

Verification results are authoritative for compilation correctness, type safety, witness consistency, and behavioral correctness. Include verification results alongside checklist findings in the review report.

Severity Classification

Apply these severity levels consistently across all categories:

Level	Criteria	Examples
Critical	Will cause loss of funds, data breach, or contract exploitation	Missing access control on mint, private key leaked to ledger, double-spend vulnerability
High	Security vulnerability or privacy leak exploitable under certain conditions	Unnecessary disclose() on sensitive data, missing overflow check on token amounts
Medium	Correctness issue, compilation problem, or significant performance concern	Wrong type cast that will fail at runtime, MerkleTree depth 32 when 10 suffices
Low	Code quality, style, or minor best practice deviation	Inconsistent naming, unused import, missing sealed modifier
Suggestion	Enhancement opportunity, not a problem	Could use pure circuit modifier for better reuse, consider adding assertion message

Output Format

For each finding, use this format:

- **[Issue title]** (`file:line`)
  - **Problem:** Clear description of what is wrong
  - **Impact:** Why this matters (security, privacy, correctness, performance)
  - **Fix:** Suggested fix with code example when applicable

Group findings by severity within your category: Critical → High → Medium → Low → Suggestions. End with a Positive Highlights section noting what was done well.