v4.10.0 to v4.10.0

---

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.** 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

✓ 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.