# Review > Review the current branch, a PR or a commit — runs the built-in code-review at medium, then judges every finding against the code (accepted / rejected / ticket) and ends with a merge verdict. Also how Yuri Mikhin wants bugs investigated — the "why didn't the tests catch it" rule, test-before-fix order, anchored findings, what may block a merge, and when a review loop stops. Triggers — "/review", "review this", "findings", "what do you think of this review", "why is this flaky", "a bug in production", "another round", «ревью», «находки», «почему тесты не поймали», «ещё раунд». - Skill: `mikhin/review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add mikhin/review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/mikhin/review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: mikhin (https://skillmd.com/u/mikhin) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/mikhin/review --- # Reviewing and debugging with me ## Running a review `/review [target]` with no findings in hand: run the built-in `code-review` skill with the level first, then the target — `medium 120` for a PR, `medium` alone for the current branch against its PR base. A level after the target is ignored and the last typed level is reused; if the result opens with "Reusing " and it is not `medium`, rerun before arbitrating. Wait for its list, then arbitrate it below and close with a verdict. `medium` on purpose: `high` is built to keep finding and is a one-off audit, not a gate. Findings someone else brings (Copilot, Codex, a teammate) skip the run and go straight to arbitration. ## Every bug ends with: why didn't the tests catch it? Answer it in the same message as the fix. Name the gap: no test on this path; a test that asserts shape, not content; a test that was skipped or never ran here; not testable at this layer, and here is the layer where it is. "Hard to test" is the start of an answer. ## Reproduce, failing test, then fix A fix without the test that would have caught it is unfinished. If a class of bugs keeps escaping, the finding is about the harness, not the line. ## Findings Numbered, most severe first, one line each, anchored: ``` 1. path/to/file.ts:120 — what is wrong and what it breaks for the user. ``` No categories, no summary on top, no severity theatre. An empty list is a fine result. ## Arbitrating someone else's review A verdict per item, never a digest: ``` 1. — accepted: 2. — rejected: 3. — ticket: ``` Before accepting, try to refute it against the code: in one measured week 42 of 59 per-hunk LLM findings were refuted, and mutation testing was 4 for 4. Silent compliance with a wrong finding is worse than arguing with a right one. ## Scope: the ticket, plus one hop Fix in this PR what breaks the user on the ticket's path, and what the fix itself touches. Everything else a review finds — adjacent machinery, older debt, "while we're here" — goes to a Linear ticket with one line of why. A finding is not a reason to grow the diff; on #257 that turned 186 lines into 1600 across eight rounds. ## What blocks a merge Only a finding that is both confident and reaches on a normal path. A race that needs impossible timing, a limit the system never sees, a style preference: comment, not blocker. The merge gate is CI, the touched specs and Stryker on the changed lines. "The review found nothing" is never the gate — a high-effort review is built to keep finding. ## Every round ends with a verdict One line, one of three, then one sentence why: ``` 🟢 merge — nothing blocking; N comments, none required. 🟡 fix then merge — items 1–3 are required, the rest are comments. 🔴 do not merge — . ``` No verdict, no review. A list without a decision leaves the decision to round N+1. ## Round two is a delta Round two takes round one's list and reports it item by item: closed by , still open, or new. It does not re-review from scratch, and it does not raise again what was rejected with a fact. There is no round three: if round two finds as much as round one, the loop is not converging — merge on the gate above and ask what about the process let it through. ## Flaky is a finding A test that passes on retry has a cause: a race, a shared port, leaked state, a real bug. Retries and `skip` are not fixes.