# Tesserine Groundwork Code Review > Code Review - Skill: `tomevault-io/tesserine-groundwork-code-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/tesserine-groundwork-code-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/tesserine-groundwork-code-review/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/tesserine-groundwork-code-review --- # Code Review Review establishes whether a proposed change is safe to advance. It is not a style pass and not a forge operation. The reviewer evaluates the change against the work unit, behavior contract, implementation plan, and verification evidence, then classifies findings as blocking or non-blocking. ## Review Focus **Scope honesty.** Confirm the change stays inside the claimed work. A change outside the work unit is either removed or filed as follow-up work before approval. **Correctness.** Look for behavior regressions, broken interfaces, invalid schemas, unreachable graph paths, stale fixtures, and tests that no longer prove the behavior they name. **Semantic-shift detection.** Treat "cleanup" skeptically when it changes meaning. Renames, schema vocabulary changes, and routing changes are semantic unless proven otherwise. **Evidence quality.** Verification must be fresh and relevant to the claimed behavior. Passing commands are not enough when the tests do not cover the changed behavior. **Documentation impact.** User-visible or authoring-surface changes require documentation that explains the current behavior. Historical decision records may name superseded designs, but current guides must not teach obsolete interfaces. **Fix-or-file discipline.** Blocking findings must be fixed in the change before approval. Non-blocking findings may be filed as follow-up only when the current change remains correct without them. ## Finding Classification - `blocking`: approval would ship incorrect behavior, misleading current docs, missing required evidence, scope creep, or a broken contract/interface. - `non-blocking`: useful improvement that does not affect correctness, traceability, or the ability to continue the workflow. ## Corruption Modes - `rubber-stamp-review`: approving because tests pass without checking whether the tests prove the claimed behavior. - `style-substitution`: spending review attention on formatting preferences while missing behavior or contract drift. - `scope-amnesia`: accepting unrelated changes because they are small. - `historical-doc-rewrite`: editing decision records to hide superseded states instead of marking current guidance accurately. --- > Source: [tesserine/groundwork](https://github.com/tesserine/groundwork) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).