review-mode

name	review-mode
description	Switch to critic mode after finishing a chunk, produce PASS / FIX / REDO verdict. USE WHEN: sub-task boundary reached, user said "review" / "double-check" / "is this right" / "spot the bug" / "看一下" / "review 一下", before reporting "done" on anything user will rely on, after writing code / config / doc, after sub-agent returns. TRIGGER PHRASES: "review", "double-check", "看一下", "review 一下", "查一下", "检查", "找 bug", "is this right", "spot the bug", "verifier", "自己 review 一下". SKIP WHEN: one-line edit, user explicitly said "ship it" / "no more review" / "不用 review" in this turn, user can see result in chat immediately.
license	Apache-2.0
compatibility	Requires MiniMax Code with Agent Plugins 1.0 support.
metadata	{"author":"antianqi","version":"0.1.1","inspired-by":"https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/codex-rs/protocol/src/protocol.rs (EnteredReviewModeEvent / ExitedReviewModeEvent)"}

Review Mode

After you write code, before you say "done", switch hats. You were the author; now you are the reviewer. The reviewer has one job: find the things the author didn't.

This Skill is the cheapest insurance you can buy against the most common agent failure mode — declaring a task done when it is not.

When to use

Activate when any of these is true:

• A non-trivial sub-task has just finished (a function, a file, a config, a migration, a test suite, a doc section).
• The user said "review this", "double-check", "is this right", "spot the bug", or "any issues with this?".
• You are about to mark a todowrite step [x] as done and that step touches anything the user will rely on.
• The work crossed a trust boundary (production, public API, schema, persisted data, a contract someone else will code against).

When NOT to use

• A trivial one-line edit. The marginal value of review is too low to pay the token cost.
• The user explicitly said "ship it" / "no review" / "just commit" in this turn.
• You are mid-stream on a single step and the next step will surface errors anyway (e.g. running the test suite next).
• The work is exploratory (a sketch, a draft, "show me what you mean"). Review it later, when the draft becomes a proposal.

Process

1. State the review scope in one sentence before you read anything: "Reviewing the auth refactor: 4 files changed, new OidcProvider trait, SAML tests must still pass." Future you needs the boundary.

2. Re-read your own output from a critic's position. Open the file(s) you changed. Do not re-read the diff; read the result. Look for:

   • Off-by-one, wrong-sign, null/None mishandling, empty-collection edge cases.
   • Naming that lies (function called validate that does not validate).
   • Log/error paths that swallow useful information.
   • Tests that pass for the wrong reason (e.g. asserting == on a value the function never returns).
   • Public API surface that locks in a bad design (a struct that is too wide to evolve, a flag that should be an enum).
   • Comments that contradict the code.

3. Run the verifier if there is one. Tests, linter, type-check, schema diff, manual smoke. If the verifier says green, you have evidence; if it is silent, you have hope. Do not ship hope.

4. Produce a verdict in this exact shape:

   ## Review — <scope>
   
   **Verdict**: PASS  /  PASS with caveats  /  FIX required  /  REDO
   
   **What I checked** (bullet list of specific things):
   - <...>
   
   **What I found** (concrete defects, not vibes):
   - <file:line — defect — fix>
   - (or "none")
   
   **What I am unsure about** (so the user can decide):
   - <...>
   - (or "nothing — the verifier ran and the design matches the spec")
   

5. Apply fixes if the verdict is FIX / REDO and the fix is small. Do not fix large things in review mode; surface them and start a new plan-stream-emit cycle.

6. If PASS, continue to the next step. The review record is part of the audit trail — keep it short but specific.

Output contract

The user sees, in this order:

• One-line scope statement.
• The Review block above.
• (If fix) the one-line summary of what you fixed.
• (If PASS) the next concrete step.

Example

Reviewing the auth refactor: 4 files changed, new `OidcProvider` trait, SAML tests must still pass.

## Review — auth refactor (OIDC adapter v1)

**Verdict**: PASS with caveats

**What I checked**:
- `cargo check` on the workspace
- `cargo test auth::` (all 14 tests pass, including the 12 unchanged SAML ones)
- the new `OidcProvider` trait signature for type-correctness
- the `auth.oidc_enabled = false` default path against the existing SAML flow

**What I found**:
- `src/auth/oidc/mod.rs:42` — `expires_at` is `i64` not `u64`; future-dated tokens underflow.
  Fix applied (cast + `saturating_sub`).
- `src/auth/callback.rs:91` — error path on token exchange returns the raw HTTP body, leaks
  the client_secret on 4xx. Fix applied (redact before returning).
- nothing else

**What I am unsure about**:
- whether the OIDC `nonce` claim should be persisted in the session store; the Okta
  spec says yes, Auth0 says optional. Pick before merging.

Common pitfalls

• Do not review your own diff — review the result. A diff makes you forgive yourself (you remember why each line is there). The file on disk has no such forgiveness.
• Do not write "looks good" as a verdict. "Looks good" is a vibe, not a finding. Name the specific things you checked, even if they are negative ("verified X, Y, Z are absent").
• Do not skip the verifier step. If there is no test, run the build. If there is no build, read the file with a critical eye.
• Do not fix in review mode beyond trivial. Anything that takes more than 2-3 minutes to fix is a new sub-task, not a review item. Surface it.
• Do not produce a 50-line review report for a 5-line change. Match the report size to the change size.
• Do not review work you did not just do. If the user asks you to review code from last week, this Skill's "just finished" assumption does not hold — re-anchor by stating scope.

Verification checklist

• Did you state the review scope in one sentence?
• Did you re-read the file(s) from a critic's position, not the diff?
• Did you run the verifier (tests / lint / type-check / smoke) and cite its result?
• Is the verdict one of {PASS, PASS with caveats, FIX required, REDO}?
• Is "What I found" specific (file:line — defect — fix), not vague?
• If you applied a fix, was it trivial (< 2-3 minutes)?
• Did the user see the review record before you moved on?