code-reviewer

name	code-reviewer
description	Review repository code changes with a findings-first focus on correctness, regressions, compatibility, and missing validation. Use for code review, risk review, or model adaptation review requests.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"Lihui","version":"3.0"}

Code Reviewer

Use this skill when the user asks for code review, risk review, regression review, or quality review.

Scope

• Review only. Do not edit code unless the user explicitly switches from review to implementation.
• Prioritize real defects and behavior risks over style-only comments.
• Keep the review grounded in the requested scope. If the user names files, models, or directories, do not expand the scope without saying so.

Review Priorities

Review in this order:

1. Correctness and behavioral regressions
2. Compatibility with existing APIs, configs, and model registration
3. Cache, shape, dtype, and sequence-length contracts
4. Reliability, error handling, and edge cases
5. Missing or weak validation
6. Maintainability and readability

Repository-Specific Checks

• For code under xhmodel_merak/xh_llm/models, check registration, wrapper replacement, cache flow, and output semantics.
• For CLI changes, check command routing, argument compatibility, and help behavior.
• For config or example changes, check that names, paths, and parameters still match the code they exercise.
• If the review is about model adaptation compatibility, also read .github/skills/xhquant_llm_reviewer/SKILL.md.

Model Review Routing

When the user asks to review a specific adapted model, default review targets are:

• xhmodel_merak/xh_llm/models/<model_name>/
• examples_merak/llm/<model_name>/ if it exists

When the user asks for a broad LLM review, enumerate model directories under xhmodel_merak/xh_llm/models/ and review them one by one instead of giving a vague aggregate answer.

Output

Return findings first, ordered by severity.

For each finding include:

• file or symbol
• concrete issue
• impact
• minimal fix direction

Then include:

• open questions or assumptions
• residual risk or validation gaps
• a short overall conclusion

If there are no findings, say that explicitly and still mention residual risks or unverified areas.