Menú
Use when asked to review code, a diff, or a completed phase, especially when the result should emphasize bugs, regressions, validation status, and evidence-backed findings instead of style commentary.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Use when a non-trivial repository task needs a durable, execution-ready ControlFlow plan before coding, especially for cross-file changes, migrations, architectural uncertainty, or explicit risk review.
Use after implementation when a ControlFlow plan exists and review should focus on plan conformance, scope drift, evidence-backed correctness findings, and residual validation gaps rather than duplicating native Codex /review.
Use after a ControlFlow plan is saved and before implementation. Runs tier-gated adversarial verification inline: structural audit, assumption/mirage detection, and cold-start executability simulation.
Use when a repository task needs a high-quality ControlFlow plan before coding — small, medium, or large scope, cross-file edits, risky migrations, architectural uncertainty, or any work that should produce a saved Markdown plan artifact in plans/. Single-sources the plan format from schemas/planner.plan.schema.json and the plan template.
Use when a saved plan may contain hidden assumptions disguised as facts, especially for medium or large tasks, unresolved high-risk plans, or plans that mention files, APIs, versions, integrations, tests, or concurrency patterns that should be verified against the repository before execution.
Use when a saved plan should be tested for cold-start executability before coding, especially for large tasks, weak-confidence plans, or plans whose early phases may be too vague for a fresh executor to follow without hidden context.
| name | controlflow-review |
| description | Use when asked to review code, a diff, or a completed phase, especially when the result should emphasize bugs, regressions, validation status, and evidence-backed findings instead of style commentary. |
Review changes by prioritizing correctness, regression risk, and evidence over style. Use this for code or completed-phase review; use controlflow-plan-audit or controlflow-assumption-verifier for pre-execution plan review.
Check correctness/functionality, security, architecture/design, maintainability/style, and test quality/coverage. Style comments should support behavioral risk, not bury it.
Use Nit, Optional, and FYI only after blocking findings. These are not severity levels and must not hide correctness, security, or test coverage defects.
Large reviews lose signal. When a diff is much larger than roughly 100 changed lines or mixes unrelated concerns, ask for a split or review by file area and risk axis with an explicit confidence limit.
FYI when the untested behavior can regress.references/evidence-discipline.mdreferences/review-checklist.mdreferences/validation-status.mdreferences/security-review-discipline.md../controlflow-orchestration/references/tdd-patterns.md../controlflow-planning/references/llm-behavior-guidelines.md