| name | code-review |
| description | Use before merging agent-generated code — review a diff for correctness, security, and simplicity, and report findings ranked by severity. |
Code Review
Review a change the way a careful senior engineer would: find the defects that matter, ignore style noise, and be honest about confidence.
When to use
Before any agent-authored change merges to a shared branch. Run against the diff, not the whole repo.
Process
- Read the diff and its stated intent. If the change claims to do X, verify it actually does X — and only X.
- Review along these dimensions, in order of what usually bites:
- Correctness — off-by-one, null/undefined, wrong branch, unhandled error, race, broken invariant. Trace one real input to its output.
- Security — injection, missing authz, secrets in code/logs, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, path traversal. Assume input is hostile.
- Simplicity — dead code, needless abstraction, duplicated logic, a simpler equivalent.
- Tests — does the change come with a test that would fail without it?
- Verify before reporting. For each candidate finding, construct the concrete input/state that triggers the wrong output. If you can't, mark it lower confidence or drop it.
- Report, most-severe first. For each: file:line, one-sentence defect, and the failing scenario (inputs → wrong result). No apologies, no vague "consider refactoring."
Output
A ranked list. If nothing survives verification, say so plainly — a clean review is a valid result. Do not pad it with style nits.
Guardrails
- Read-only. This skill reviews; it does not edit.
- A finding without a concrete failure scenario is a hypothesis, not a defect — label it as such.
