Code Review Protocol
Five-dimension review. Input: diff, list of changed files. Output: verdict + routing.
Dimensions
- Correctness — Does it work? Logic errors, race conditions, off-by-one, type mismatches.
- Safety — Edge cases, auth bypass, data leakage, injection, money-path errors.
- Patterns — Follows project conventions? Naming, error handling, logging, module structure.
- Coverage — Tests added/updated? Edge cases covered? Snapshot drift explained?
- Scope — Touches only declared files? No drive-by changes.
See references/review-dimensions.md for full rubric.
Procedure
- Load changed files and diff
- Score each dimension: pass / needs_fix / needs_review
- Map to action per
references/verdict-routing.md - If
needs_fixwith suggested fix → dispatch fix-agent per routing table - If
needs_review→ write finding to inbox
Verdict
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| pass | No issues found |
| needs_fix | Specific fixable issue (with suggested change) |
| needs_review | Structural concern, needs human judgment |
Source: ansonphong/meta-dev — distributed by TomeVault.