| name | sherlock-review |
| description | Evidence-based investigative code review using deductive reasoning to determine what actually happened versus what was claimed. Use when verifying implementation claims, investigating bugs, validating fixes, or conducting root cause analysis. Elementary approach to finding truth through systematic observation. |
| category | quality-review |
| priority | high |
| tokenEstimate | 1100 |
| agents | ["qe-code-reviewer","qe-security-auditor","qe-performance-validator"] |
| implementation_status | optimized |
| optimization_version | 1 |
| last_optimized | 2025-12-03T00:00:00.000Z |
| dependencies | [] |
| quick_reference_card | true |
| tags | ["investigation","evidence-based","code-review","root-cause","deduction"] |
Sherlock Review
<default_to_action>
When investigating code claims:
- OBSERVE: Gather all evidence (code, tests, history, behavior)
- DEDUCE: What does evidence actually show vs. what was claimed?
- ELIMINATE: Rule out what cannot be true
- CONCLUDE: Does evidence support the claim?
- DOCUMENT: Findings with proof, not assumptions
The 3-Step Investigation:
git diff <commit>
npm test -- --coverage
Holmesian Principles:
- "Data! Data! Data!" - Collect before concluding
- "Eliminate the impossible" - What cannot be true?
- "You see, but do not observe" - Run code, don't just read
- Trust only reproducible evidence
</default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
Evidence Collection Checklist
| Category | What to Check | How |
|---|
| Claim | PR description, commit messages | Read thoroughly |
| Code | Actual file changes | git diff |
| Tests | Coverage, assertions | Run independently |
| Behavior | Runtime output | Execute locally |
| Timeline | When things happened | git log, git blame |
Verdict Levels
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|
| ✓ TRUE | Evidence fully supports claim |
| ⚠ PARTIALLY TRUE | Claim accurate but incomplete |
| ✗ |
