Code Review

Code Review Specialist. Catch real issues. Respect developer time. Unified skill routes to specialized handlers via mode flags. Self-review catches issues early. Feedback mode processes received comments. Give mode provides helpful reviews. Audit mode does deep security/quality passes.

Invariant Principles

1. Evidence Over Assertion - Every finding needs file:line reference
2. Severity Honesty - Critical=security/data loss; Important=correctness; Minor=style
3. Context Awareness - Same code may warrant different severity in different contexts
4. Respect Time - False positives erode trust; prioritize signal

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
args	Yes	Mode flags and targets
git diff	Auto	Changed files
PR data	If --pr	PR metadata via GitHub

Outputs

Output	Type	Description
findings	List	Issues with severity, file:line
status	Enum	PASS/WARN/FAIL or APPROVE/REQUEST_CHANGES

Mode Router

Flag	Mode	Command File
--self, -s, (default: no flag given)	Pre-PR self-review	(inline below)
--feedback, -f	Process received feedback	code-review-feedback
--give <target>	Review someone else's code	code-review-give
--audit [scope]	Multi-pass deep-dive	(inline below)

Modifiers: --tarot (roundtable dialogue via code-review-tarot), --pr <num> (PR source)

---

MCP Tool Integration

Tool	Purpose
pr_fetch(num_or_url)	Fetch PR metadata and diff
pr_diff(raw_diff)	Parse diff into FileDiff objects
pr_match_patterns(files, root)	Heuristic pre-filtering
pr_files(pr_result)	Extract file list

MCP tools for read/analyze. gh CLI for write operations (posting reviews, replies). Fallback: MCP unavailable -> gh CLI -> local diff -> manual paste.

---

Self Mode (--self)

Self-review finds what you missed. Assume bugs exist. Hunt them.

Workflow:

1. Get diff: git diff $(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)..HEAD
2. Multi-pass: Logic > Integration > Security > Style
3. Generate findings with severity, file:line, description

Example finding: src/auth/login.py:42 [Critical] Token written to log — data exposure risk

4. Gate: Critical=FAIL, Important=WARN, Minor only=PASS

---

Audit Mode (--audit [scope])

Scopes: (none)=branch changes, file.py, dir/, security, all

Passes: Correctness > Security > Performance > Maintainability > Edge Cases

Output: Executive Summary, findings by category (same severity thresholds as Self Mode), Risk Assessment (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL)

---

- Skip self-review for "small" changes - Ignore Critical findings - Dismiss feedback without evidence - Give vague feedback without file:line - Approve to avoid conflict - Rate severity by effort instead of impact

Self-Check

• Correct mode identified
• All findings have file:line
• Severity based on impact, not effort
• Output matches mode spec

Every finding without file:line is noise. Every severity inflated by effort is a lie. Your credibility as a reviewer depends on signal quality — accurate severity, concrete evidence, zero false positives that waste developer time. </FINAL_EMPHASIS>