Results for “correctness”

Reviews pull request diffs for correctness, security, maintainability, and test coverage, providing severity-ranked findings and a close-out recommendation.

Enforces a principal-engineer self-review checklist on every code block before output, covering correctness, performance, security, naming, and testability.

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands, prioritizing correctness over speed for high-stakes or unfamiliar code.

Reviews code diffs or explicit file sets through independent correctness and QA lenses, producing a severity-ordered verdict for pre-merge audits or review gates.

当一段改动已经写完、要在收尾或合并前对它做一次独立审查时使用——如"审一遍这条分支、review 这次改动、这批代码有没有问题、帮我把关再合"。先把 BASE..HEAD 生成一份审查包一次读完，再按 correctness / readability / architecture / security / performance 五轴加测试质量逐项判定，输出带 file:line 的 Critical / Important / Minor 分级 findings。composable 层能力单元，通常由 execute-task 在整体验收时调用。不要用于：改动还没写完、只想跑测试、要的是动手修复而不是审查、评审需求或技术方案本身。

Code review is time-consuming and inconsistent. Reviewers miss security issues, overlook edge cases, or focus on style over substance. Meanwhile, AI agents catch these mechanical issues instantly but can't judge business logic correctness, UX decisions, or architectural fit.

Enforces OWASP Top 10:2025 compliance on code touching security-relevant domains, using cached cheat sheets and verifying fixes against OSV.dev.

Use to audit whether similar customers with similar failures received similar redress, and to find variation that could not be defended. Trigger for "are our refunds consistent", "do we compensate similar cases the same way", "audit our goodwill decisions", redress fairness review, customers who escalate getting more, or a complaint that someone else was treated better.

Align a technical document with the actual code implementation and correct drift. Use when a user asks to update docs to match current behavior, audit a technical document against the repository, or fix stale architecture, API, workflow, or operator documentation.

Audit and fix internationalisation for any web or mobile app. Use when asked to "audit i18n", "fix translations", "add locale", "natural language", "translation quality", "hardcoded strings", "localisation", or "the Japanese feels like Google Translate".

Structured code review with a checklist covering correctness, clarity, tests, security, performance, and style. Use when reviewing a PR, diff, or set of code changes before merging — including phrases like "review this", "check my changes", or "is this ready to merge".

Review pull requests or audit repositories for correctness, security, performance, test risk, architecture, dependencies, developer experience, documentation, and grounded product direction. Use for code review, repository audits, evidence-backed findings, false-positive vetting, risk assessment, prioritization, or deciding which improvements should become implementation plans.

Audits WordPress plugin or theme PHP code for internationalization (i18n) correctness, including text-domain consistency, escaped translation helpers, placeholder usage, plurals, context, and text-domain loading. Produces a severity-ranked report of issues to fix before release.

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now than to debug later.

Audit a directory of multilingual blog content for completeness, consistency, hreflang correctness, meta-tag parity, and freshness. Builds a translation coverage matrix, flags stale translations, validates hreflang and schema, and emits a prioritized report with runnable fix commands. Use when user says "locale audit", "blog locale-audit", "check translations", "multilingual audit", "translation check", "hreflang check", "Uebersetzungen pruefen".

Independent DeepSeek-backed adversarial proof-audit step for existing theorem, lemma, proposition, or proof artifacts in Markdown, LaTeX, or proof logs. Use when asked to check, audit, verify, red-team, or adversarially review a proof; when a completed proof task needs a correctness pass; or when a broader proof workflow dispatches an independent reviewer to find gaps, hidden assumptions, counterexamples, or unjustified steps.

Review code changes for correctness, completeness, bugs, edge cases, and quality. Load when the user explicitly asks to review code, check a PR, review a diff, audit recent changes, or verify an implementation matches requirements. Also triggers on "review this code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "code review", "did this implement correctly", "audit this diff", or any explicit request for a formal code review. Do NOT load for "review changes for context" or "review what happened" — those are requests to read code, not to perform a formal review.