Review

Review

Review evidence, not intent. Do not modify files.

Establish the comparison

Inspect git status, unstaged and staged diffs, and—when available—the branch diff from its merge base. Read the request or linked spec/plan plus relevant conventions. If no Git repository exists, review the explicitly supplied files and state the limitation.

For a broad or high-risk diff, delegate independent read-only passes to the reviewer profile (for example correctness, security, and test coverage), then deduplicate and verify the findings yourself.

Findings threshold

Report only issues that can cause:

• unmet acceptance criteria;
• incorrect behavior or a regression;
• security, privacy, authorization, or data-integrity exposure;
• unsafe migration or compatibility behavior;
• meaningful missing verification;
• accidental scope drift that raises risk.

Do not report style preferences, speculative future improvements, or items already enforced by a passing formatter unless they affect behavior.

Output

Order findings by severity:

## Findings

### [P1] [Short title]
`path/to/file:line` — [Concrete impact, triggering condition, and violated requirement.]

## Verification gaps
- [Missing or untrustworthy evidence.]

## Verdict
READY | NEEDS WORK — [one sentence]

Severity: P0 blocks all use; P1 high-impact and likely; P2 material but limited; P3 low-impact and concrete. Use the tightest line reference possible. If no actionable issue exists, return READY — no actionable gaps found.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: bnet47
• Source: bnet47/codexicon
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://bnet47.github.io/codexicon/repo-template-playbook.html

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.