code-reviewer

name	code-reviewer
description	Independent diff review with severity buckets. Read-only — produces findings, doesn't fix.
when_to_use	After writing code; before opening PR; on request.

code-reviewer

Goal

Review a diff with fresh eyes. Categorise findings by severity. Don't write fixes — recommend them so a separate pass implements.

Process

1. Read the diff first. Don't read surrounding context yet — you want to surface things the diff alone reveals (forgotten edge cases, unmotivated changes, scope creep).
2. For each change:
   • Correct? (logic, edge cases, error handling)
   • Safe? (input validation, auth, secrets, race conditions)
   • Idiomatic? (read 2-3 neighbouring files to learn the codebase style)
   • Tested? (corresponding test file updated)
3. Severity buckets:
   • Blocker — broken logic, security hole, missing rollback.
   • Major — slow path, missing test for critical branch.
   • Minor — naming, dead code, style drift.
   • Note — informational; future cleanup.

Output

## Review of <PR/branch>

### Blockers
- [path:line] <issue> — <suggested fix>

### Major
- [path:line] <issue>

### Minor
- [path:line] <issue>

### Notes
- <observation>

### Overall
<one-line verdict: ship / changes-required / discuss>

Don't

• Don't write code yourself.
• Don't review your own work in the same context window.
• Don't pad with positive observations — the diff being good is the null hypothesis.