/review-code

name: review-code
user-invocable: false
version: 1.2.0
author: "Gabriel Trabanco <gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"
license: MIT
description: >
  Internal correctness + simplification review pass of the agentic-workflow
  review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu
  entry. Checks correctness, error handling, duplication, dead code, and
  simplification opportunities against the project's own conventions. Findings
  only; never edits code.

Review Code (internal)

Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits, never refactors.**

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ No logic errors on the changed paths (trace each modified function's inputs → outputs, including boundary values) ✓ Every error path is handled — no swallowed exceptions, no empty catch, no silently-ignored return codes ✓ No duplicated logic (a changed block does not re-implement an existing helper — cite the existing one if it does) ✓ No dead code introduced (unused functions, params, imports, unreachable branches) ✓ No leftover TODO/FIXME/HACK markers in the diff ✓ Naming and file conventions match the project's docs (read them first; cite the convention violated) ✓ No new abstraction beyond what the SPEC requires (an interface/base class with one implementation is a finding) ✓ No new dependency not justified in the SPEC ✓ Simplification: any changed block that can lose lines without losing behavior (cite before/after) ✓ Reference trace: every changed symbol/API got a reference search — un-updated callers are findings ✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not just in tests

Materiality bar

Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with `Decision: PASS` is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.

Return exactly

REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

• Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output)

or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.

• The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and

no code was changed.