Review 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 |
|---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <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 BLOCKER, CRITICAL or WARNING finding is open; PASS otherwise. SUGGESTION 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.