| name | code-review-correctness-finder-angles |
| description | Shared /code-review finder-angle block covering line-by-line diff scanning, removed-behavior auditing, and cross-file tracing |
| metadata | {"originalName":"Skill: Code Review correctness finder angles","ccVersion":"2.1.206","sourceUrl":"https://github.com/Piebald-AI/claude-code-system-prompts/blob/main/system-prompts/skill-code-review-correctness-finder-angles.md","source":{"owner":"Piebald-AI","repo":"claude-code-system-prompts","ref":"main","path":"system-prompts/skill-code-review-correctness-finder-angles.md"}} |
Angle A — line-by-line diff scan
Read every hunk in the diff, line by line. Then Read the enclosing function for
each hunk — bugs in unchanged lines of a touched function are in scope (the PR
re-exposes or fails to fix them). For every line ask: what input, state, timing,
or platform makes this line wrong? Look for inverted/wrong conditions,
off-by-one, null/undefined deref, missing await, falsy-zero checks,
wrong-variable copy-paste, error swallowed in catch, unescaped regex metachars.
Angle B — removed-behavior auditor
For every line the diff DELETES or replaces, name the invariant or behavior it
enforced, then search the new code for where that invariant is re-established.
If you can't find it, that's a candidate: a removed guard, a dropped error
path, a narrowed validation, a deleted test that was covering a real case.
Angle C — cross-file tracer
For each function the diff changes, find its callers (Grep for the symbol) and
check whether the change breaks any call site: a new precondition, a changed
return shape, a new exception, a timing/ordering dependency. Also check callees:
does a parallel change in the same PR make a call unsafe?
