name	code-review
description	Code review workflow for evaluating changes, implementations, and tests. Use when reviewing code, validating functionality, checking a diff, preparing merge feedback, or deciding whether an implementation meets project style and quality expectations.

Code Review

Review for correctness first, then maintainability. Prefer concrete, actionable findings tied to observable risk.

Understand the intended behavior and the affected user-facing or system-facing workflows.
Inspect the implementation in context, not only the diff. Run relevant tests or checks when practical.
For non-trivial changes, use independent subagents or parallel review agents when available. Give each agent a concrete validation target and avoid leaking your conclusions so their pass can catch missed functionality or style issues.
Apply the standards from code-style. Push back on premature abstractions, unnecessary files or package boundaries, tiny helper sprawl, and narrow tests that miss broad application behavior.
Treat missing broad tests as a higher risk than missing tests for small private helpers.

Lead with bugs, regressions, broken workflows, missing broad tests, and maintainability risks.
Include file and line references when possible.
Separate confirmed issues from questions, assumptions, or optional improvements.

name	code-review
description	Code review workflow for evaluating changes, implementations, and tests. Use when reviewing code, validating functionality, checking a diff, preparing merge feedback, or deciding whether an implementation meets project style and quality expectations.

Review for correctness first, then maintainability. Prefer concrete, actionable findings tied to observable risk.

Understand the intended behavior and the affected user-facing or system-facing workflows.
Inspect the implementation in context, not only the diff. Run relevant tests or checks when practical.
For non-trivial changes, use independent subagents or parallel review agents when available. Give each agent a concrete validation target and avoid leaking your conclusions so their pass can catch missed functionality or style issues.
Apply the standards from code-style. Push back on premature abstractions, unnecessary files or package boundaries, tiny helper sprawl, and narrow tests that miss broad application behavior.
Treat missing broad tests as a higher risk than missing tests for small private helpers.

Lead with bugs, regressions, broken workflows, missing broad tests, and maintainability risks.
Include file and line references when possible.
Separate confirmed issues from questions, assumptions, or optional improvements.

code-review