v1.1.0 to v1.2.0

---

name: review-code

user-invocable: false

author: "Gabriel Trabanco <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.**

## 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)

✓ Edge cases the SPEC's dev scenarios name are actually handled in code, not

just in tests

## 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.