review-code v4.10.0A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/a86db23ecad821bc.

---
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
  helper — cite the existing one if it does), **including a shadow copy**: a
  file, schema, helper or prose block whose original lives outside the reviewed
  tree, in a pinned dependency or a published package, is a duplicate of that
  artifact — cite the artifact and its pin, or the recorded reason the copy must
  exist; the vendoring rule demands provenance, never a second implementation
✓ 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
✓ **Obsolete by an available mechanism is a deletion, code and docs (#353)** —
  a changed or neighbouring surface the project already supersedes (a helper a
  pinned dependency owns, a doc describing a replaced flow, a local script the
  runner provides) is `fix-now (delete)`; the deciding rule is the project's
  **compatibility policy**, read from its `AGENTS.md` before classifying — when
  nothing in it requires keeping the old surface, keeping it is the finding and
  deleting it is the fix
✓ **A citation is not a consumer (#353)** — prose (`AGENTS.md`, a skill, a
  comment, a docs page) naming a symbol, file or block never makes it used; the
  consumer test is executable or explicitly declared, and every citation is part
  of what the deletion removes
✓ **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

`Sev` and `Impact` are the two published closed sets (`BLOCKER | CRITICAL |
WARNING | SUGGESTION` and `blocking | docs-only | report-only`); their meanings
are owned by `review-implementation` (`CLASSIFY.md` §Severity ladder) — assign a
token, never a prose grade.

```
REVIEW CODE — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <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 `BLOCKER`, `CRITICAL` or `WARNING` finding is open; PASS otherwise.
`SUGGESTION` 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.