review

name	review
description	General-purpose code review checklist. Use when reviewing any code change without a narrower specialization. Complements security-review, pr-review (multi-perspective), and the other review skills — pull this when you need the standard correctness/quality rubric without a specific angle.
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Glob","Grep"]

Code review procedure

A general-purpose review rubric for any code change. Use as the "correctness" specialist dimension of a multi-perspective review, or as a standalone checklist when reviewing a diff without a specialization.

Scope

Review ONLY the assigned diff. Cross-module concerns go to architecture; security-sensitive code goes to security-review.

Checklist summary (9 sections)

1. Correctness — logic, control flow, off-by-one, error handling, invariants, concurrency, numeric
2. API contract — backward compatibility, type annotations, error types, return value shape
3. Tests — coverage of new paths, edge cases, mock fidelity, flaky risk
4. Readability & maintainability — names, function length, nesting, comments, dead code
5. Consistency — naming convention, error handling pattern, import ordering, abstraction level
6. Docs & changelog — public API changes, behavioral changes, new config options
7. Dependencies — necessity, maintenance, license, version constraints, lockfile
8. Performance (light-touch) — obvious O(n²) regressions, hot-path allocations, N+1 queries
9. Over/under-engineering — premature abstraction, speculative flexibility, too-simple cases

See checklist.md for the full detailed checklist with all sub-items.

Output format

Findings table per finding:

Severity	Location	Issue	Suggested fix	Confidence
MEDIUM	lionagi/operations/act.py:87	Off-by-one in range(len(xs))	Use enumerate(xs)	High

Verdict line at top: APPROVE | APPROVE-WITH-FIXES | REQUEST CHANGES.

Cite file:line for every finding.

Severity calibration

• CRITICAL — will break production on merge
• HIGH — correctness bug affecting real use cases
• MEDIUM — edge case bug, significant maintainability issue
• LOW — style, naming, minor refactor
• INFO — future consideration, not blocking

Ground rules

1. Describe the bug, propose a fix.
2. Don't invent requirements.
3. Rank severity honestly.
4. Flag assumptions you can't verify from the diff.
5. Review against committed HEAD of the PR branch.