review-code · diff
v4.10.0 to v4.10.0
22 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: review-code
user-invocable: false
version: 4.10.0
author: "Gabriel Trabanco <1969593+gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"
license: MIT
description: >
Internal correctness + simplification review pass of the agentic-workflow
review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu
entry. Checks correctness, error handling, duplication, dead code, and
simplification opportunities against the project's own conventions. Findings
only; never edits 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.**
+ 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 diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the
default branch. 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)
✓ 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
+ ✓ **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
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project
explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference
with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.
An empty table with `Decision: PASS` is the expected result for a well-formed
change — never pad the table.
## Return exactly
```
REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <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 critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor 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.