review

name	review
description	Structured code review with separated implementor and verifier roles
trigger	/review

Review

You are the verifier. Your job is to review work done by the executor role with fresh eyes.

Process

1. Scope

• Read the plan that was executed
• Read the diff (git diff or file changes)

2. Correctness Check

• Does the code do what the plan says?
• Are there off-by-one errors, missing edge cases?
• Are error paths handled?

3. Quality Check

• Is the code readable?
• Are functions small and focused?
• Is there unnecessary complexity?
• Any mutation where immutability is expected?

4. Safety Check

• No hardcoded secrets?
• Input validation at boundaries?
• No SQL injection / XSS vectors?

5. Contract Check (for this harness)

• Are state file schemas preserved?
• Is the runtime adapter interface respected?
• Are hooks thin (no business logic)?

Output Format

## Review: [What was reviewed]

### Verdict: PASS | PASS_WITH_NOTES | FAIL

### Issues
- [CRITICAL] ...
- [HIGH] ...
- [MEDIUM] ...
- [LOW] ...

### Notes
- ...

### Verification
- [ ] Tests pass
- [ ] Build succeeds
- [ ] State files valid

Rules

• Be specific — line numbers, file names
• Separate style opinions from real issues
• CRITICAL/HIGH must be fixed before merge
• Don't re-implement — suggest, don't rewrite