/review-code

name: review-code
user-invocable: false
version: 4.10.0
author: "Gabriel Trabanco <1969593+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.** Questions an unclear expectation raises obey the all-stages no-assumption rule — **ask-don't-infer**, owner `skills/unit-lane/references/DESIGN.md` (`ask-dont-infer@1`).

Scope

The caller's diff or path/glob — the shape is the finder contract's (`skills/review-implementation/references/FINDER_CONTRACT.md`, this section's owner). 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), **including a shadow copy**: a file, schema, helper or prose block whose original lives outside the reviewed tree, in a pinned dependency or a published package, is a duplicate of that artifact — cite the artifact and its pin, or the recorded reason the copy must exist; the vendoring rule demands provenance, never a second implementation ✓ 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 ✓ Sweep declaration present: a changed token- or claim-shaped surface (a published vocabulary token, a claim kind, a phrase a surface asserted, a reader/echo pattern) carries its `swept: /<pattern>/<flags> → expected <n> in <glob>` line on the fold's `## Log` entry — class `workflow`, the project's own survivors rule, and `scripts/promise-coherence.mjs` re-runs it as `sweep-mismatch` ✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not just in tests ✓ **Is deleting the surface the complete fix? (S8)** — before any edit is proposed, check: does removing the surface entirely achieve the goal more reliably than repairing it? If yes → route `fix-now (delete)`, not `fix-now (repair)`. This is the deletion mandate: design and plan produce retirements as first-class deliverables. ✓ **Unused code routes two ways (#340)** — every unconsumed symbol (or unreferenced prose block) is a deletion candidate routed through the classifier's two-way rule (`review-implementation`, `CLASSIFY.md`): delivered-feature-without-consumer → bug finding; orphaned by a requested replacement/removal → `fix-now (delete)`. The row cites what requested the feature and what replaced it — the two classes are never conflated ✓ **Duplication is a deletion candidate (#340)** — a duplicated block, checklist or contract (code or prose) proposes its own deletion, or carries the recorded reason the copy must exist; a silent duplicate is a finding ✓ **Obsolete by an available mechanism is a deletion, code and docs (#353)** — a changed or neighbouring surface the project already supersedes (a helper a pinned dependency owns, a doc describing a replaced flow, a local script the runner provides) is `fix-now (delete)`; the deciding rule is the project's **compatibility policy**, read from its `AGENTS.md` before classifying — when nothing in it requires keeping the old surface, keeping it is the finding and deleting it is the fix ✓ **A citation is not a consumer (#353)** — prose (`AGENTS.md`, a skill, a comment, a docs page) naming a symbol, file or block never makes it used; the consumer test is executable or explicitly declared, and every citation is part of what the deletion removes ✓ **Features-preserved-without-it (#340)** — after any proposed deletion (code or skill prose; "code" includes prose), verify every requested feature still works without the removed part before merge; a deletion that breaks a requested feature is a finding, not a cleanup ✓ **Removal-feature cascade (#340)** — a change whose purpose is to remove a feature deletes the code **and** its documentation **and** every sibling mention the context makes necessary, with one sweep declaration per deleted truth (`swept: /<pattern>/<flags> → expected <n> in <glob>`); when the cascade's extent is unclear, the reviewer researches, understands and contrasts — it does not guess the cascade's extent

Materiality bar

The bar is owned by `skills/review-implementation/references/FINDER_CONTRACT.md` — apply it as written: cite the rule it violates beside the evidence; never pad the table.

Return exactly

`Sev` and `Impact` are the two published closed sets (`BLOCKER | CRITICAL | WARNING | SUGGESTION` and `blocking | docs-only | report-only`); their meanings are owned by `review-implementation` (`CLASSIFY.md` §Severity ladder) — assign a token, never a prose grade.

REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|--