code-review

Purpose

Use When

• An implementation handoff is ready for review.
• A risky change needs focused regression analysis.
• The repo needs findings ordered by severity.

Do Not Use When

• The task is still in early scoping or spec drafting.
• The request is to implement or refactor code rather than review it.

Inputs

• Change set
• Governing spec
• Validation evidence

Outputs

• Findings by severity
• Residual risk summary
• Missing validation notes

Workflow

1. Compare the change set against the approved spec and stated scope.
2. Inspect for broken behavior, missing tests, rule violations, or contract drift.
3. Prioritize findings by severity and confidence.
4. Summarize residual risks and validation gaps that remain.

Rules

• Lead with issues, not praise.
• Anchor findings to files, behavior, or contracts.
• Prefer concrete, testable statements over vague quality language.

Checklist

• The approved scope was checked.
• Findings are prioritized.
• Evidence gaps are called out.
• Residual risk is summarized.

Non-Negotiable Rules

• Do not bury critical findings under summary text.
• Do not approve behavior that conflicts with the governing spec.
• Do not treat missing validation as a minor detail when risk is material.

References

• rules/global-rules.md

• rules/agent-rules.md

• checklists/review-ready.md

Examples

Example Trigger

Example Output Shape