rabby-code-review

name	rabby-code-review
description	Review Rabby browser-extension pull requests for actionable correctness, wallet-safety, security, privacy, build, and supply-chain issues, and publish validated inline GitHub findings. Use when Codex is asked to review a Rabby PR or its changed code; do not use it to implement fixes unless separately requested.

Rabby Code Review

Review the current PR head and report only actionable issues. Publish findings only when the request or automation context authorizes GitHub changes.

Review Workflow

1. Re-fetch PR metadata with an available authenticated GitHub API or tool. Continue only when the PR is open and not a draft. Record the current head SHA.
2. Fetch every changed file and diff page, existing review comments and reviews, and full file contents at the recorded head. Read AGENTS.md, relevant repo-local skills, and touched package, extension, build, and workflow configuration.
3. Build a changed-line map from the diff. Inspect surrounding implementation and call sites; do not judge security-sensitive behavior from a diff alone.
4. Report only issues introduced or made newly reachable by the PR. Skip style preferences and concerns already enforced by lint or formatting. De-duplicate existing comments and multiple symptoms of the same root cause.
5. Anchor every public finding inline to a valid changed diff line. Use the right side for additions and the left side for deletions. Prefer an apply-able suggestion only when the exact replacement is small and safe.
6. Use REQUEST_CHANGES only for blocking wallet-safety, correctness, build, or data-loss defects. Use COMMENT for actionable non-blocking findings.
7. Re-fetch the head SHA before posting. If it changed, discard stale findings and review the new head. After posting, re-read the resulting comments, review, reviewer requests, or API response and verify every target and action.

Public Review Rules

• Keep comments concise, neutral, and actionable.
• Post inline findings only. Do not add a standalone summary or LGTM comment.
• If there are no actionable findings, do not submit an empty review or top-level clean-pass comment.
• Never mention prompts, internal tools, local paths, model or runtime details, credentials, private keys, or reviewer implementation details.
• Do not post duplicate findings for the same root cause.

Wallet-Safety Priorities

Prioritize defects that can expose assets, secrets, identity, or signing intent:

• Exposed, logged, persisted, uploaded, copied, rendered, or transmitted private keys, seed phrases, mnemonics, passphrases, decrypted wallet material, signatures, auth tokens, or sensitive wallet data.
• Weakened biometric, passcode, vault, secure-storage, backup, restore, encryption, device-binding, lock, or autolock behavior.
• Incorrect transaction, signing, typed-data, approval, Permit2, EIP-712, EIP-7702, WalletConnect, RPC, chain-switching, gas, nonce, simulation, or broadcast behavior.
• Hidden or misleading spender, recipient, contract, token approval, NFT approval, chain ID, calldata, simulation result, risk warning, or security-engine output.
• Phishing, spoofing, origin, domain, address, clipboard, deep-link, WebView, universal-link, or QR validation weaknesses.
• Sensitive telemetry, analytics, crash reports, screenshots, or debug logging.
• Remote configuration or API data trusted for security-critical signing or UI decisions without adequate validation.
• Regressions affecting hardware wallets, multisig or Gnosis Safe, watch-only accounts, imported keys, seed accounts, backups, or account switching.
• BigNumber, decimal, precision, token-unit, chain, or address-comparison errors in financial or signing paths.

Browser-Extension Checks

• Inspect manifest permissions, CSP, web_accessible_resources, remote-code exposure, and build supply-chain changes.
• Trace content-script, inpage-bridge, background or service-worker message passing and validate sender, site origin, payload, and privilege boundaries.
• Check provider and RPC exposure, connected-site permissions, vault persistence, and storage handling.
• Treat MultiSend and Gnosis Safe batch flows carefully; verify inner call targets and delegatecall semantics.

Dependency and Supply-Chain Escalation

Treat package manifests, lockfiles, package-manager configuration, package patches, resolutions or overrides, vendored or forked dependencies, build and release scripts, GitHub Actions versions, and extension permission or dependency changes as supply-chain indicators.

For an indicator:

1. Confirm that the changed path is genuinely dependency or tooling related; do not classify an unrelated directory merely because its name contains patches.
2. Inspect the actual package, lockfile, patch, action, permission, or published-package delta when feasible before claiming a blocking defect.
3. Request ddddhm1234 as a reviewer.
4. Leave one concise inline notification mentioning @ddddhm1234 on a changed dependency or tooling line, and do not duplicate it across files.