review-changes

name	review-changes
description	Change reviewer: assess diff impact across the repository.

Review Changes

Run a repository-wide impact review triggered by recent changes. The changed files are only the starting point; the review target is the full affected behavior surface, including unchanged dependents, nearby contracts, tests, and likely regression paths.

Core stance

• Stay read-only.
• Use the review template semantics from src.codex/AGENTS.codex.md: $analyst -> QA lane -> reviewer lane.
• Review the repo in light of the changes, not just the diff lines themselves.
• Findings come first, ordered by severity.
• Do NOT commit or modify files.

Scope decision

1. Check $ARGUMENTS.

• If a PR URL, PR number, branch, commit range, or diff target is given, use that scope.
• Otherwise inspect current unstaged and staged changes with git diff and git diff --cached.
• If no changes are present, stop and tell the user there is nothing to review.

2. If the user mentions a bug, review thread, accepted plan, or expected fix list, use that as the completion baseline.
3. If no explicit baseline exists, review against the observed change impact and say that fix-completeness against an external checklist could not be verified.

Review workflow

1. Run $analyst first.

• Goal: identify what changed, which contracts or behaviors moved, what unchanged code depends on those changes, and where logic may now be incomplete.
• Require the analyst to inspect callers, dependents, tests, config, schemas, and adjacent modules that may be affected even if they were not edited.

2. Run the QA lane.

• Use $qa-engineer by default.
• If external review is preferred for an eligible QA-side slot, $external-reviewer may stand in for that lane.
• Goal: verify regression risk, edge cases, test sufficiency, fix completeness, and whether untouched behavior is now inconsistent with the new logic.

3. Run the reviewer lane.

• Always invoke $architecture-reviewer.
• Add $security-reviewer if the change touches auth, trust boundaries, secrets, dangerous configuration, input validation, or vulnerability surfaces.
• Add $performance-reviewer if the change touches hot paths, query plans, rendering loops, budgets, throughput, or latency-sensitive behavior.
• Add $ux-reviewer, $accessibility-reviewer, or $ui-test-engineer when the affected surface is clearly user-facing and the risk is interaction quality rather than pure logic.
• If external review is preferred for an eligible review-side slot, $external-reviewer may stand in for the matching reviewer role.

4. Keep the chain sequential in Gemini unless the user explicitly approves a delegated team and the scopes are clearly independent.

What to verify

• The requested fixes are actually present.
• The apparent root cause is covered, not just one symptom.
• Unchanged callers, consumers, configs, tests, or docs are still compatible with the new behavior.
• Nearby logic still makes sense after the change.
• Hidden regressions, stale assumptions, and missed edge cases are surfaced.
• Validation is strong enough for the touched behavior, or the exact gap is called out.
• The change did not leave partial rewires, stale branches, dead conditions, or forgotten follow-up adjustments in unchanged files.

Output

Return one unified review with:

• scope reviewed
• findings ordered by severity
• impacted unchanged surfaces that were checked
• what could not be verified
• verdict: PASS, REVISE, or BLOCKED

If the user asked "did we fix everything?", answer that directly before the detailed findings.

Persistence

• If the repository uses active work-items, persist the accepted review artifact there.
• Otherwise log the review under .reports/YYYY-MM/ using the standard report naming convention.

Rules

• Do not role-play specialist reviewers inline when delegation is available and permitted.
• Treat changed files as entry points, not as the review boundary.
• If a critical issue appears early, surface it immediately.
• If the impact surface is too large for a trustworthy single pass, say so and recommend splitting the review into smaller scopes.