# Review Version: 1.0.0 ## Purpose Review completed work for correctness, regression risk, maintainability, security, and consistency with the project's existing behavior. This review occurs after implementation. It does not replace execution or testing. --- # Review Context Before reviewing, understand: ```text REQUESTED CHANGE ACTUAL CHANGE FILES MODIFIED VERIFICATION ALREADY PERFORMED IMPORTANT PROJECT CONSTRAINTS ``` Inspect the resulting diff when available. --- # Review Areas Evaluate only relevant areas. --- # Correctness Check: ```text Does the implementation satisfy the request? Does the logic do what it claims? Are important branches handled? Are errors handled appropriately? ``` --- # Regression Risk Ask: ```text What existing behavior could this change unintentionally affect? ``` Inspect: ```text callers shared code public APIs database behavior configuration routes file formats authentication ``` when relevant. --- # Project Consistency Check whether the implementation follows established: ```text architecture naming error handling configuration data access testing logging ``` Do not recommend a different architecture merely because another pattern is personally preferable. --- # Security When relevant, inspect: ```text authentication authorization input validation output encoding SQL injection command injection path traversal secret handling privilege boundaries ``` Do not manufacture security findings without evidence. --- # Data Integrity For data changes inspect: ```text transactions null handling duplicates type conversion row counts partial writes referential integrity ``` --- # Maintainability Look for: ```text unnecessary duplication hidden side effects magic values poor naming unnecessary abstraction unnecessary dependencies complexity without benefit ``` --- # Verification Check: ```text Were appropriate tests actually run? Does the verification prove the important behavior? Was only the happy path tested? What remains unverified? ``` Do not accept: ```text "This should work." ``` as verification evidence. --- # Diff Hygiene Inspect for: ```text accidental deletions formatting churn debug code temporary files hardcoded credentials unrelated edits stale comments generated files accidentally committed ``` --- # Finding Classification Classify findings as: ```text BLOCKER IMPORTANT OPTIONAL ``` ## Blocker Must be resolved before completion. ## Important Should be addressed because it creates meaningful risk. ## Optional Improvement that is useful but not required for correctness. Do not inflate optional preferences into blockers. --- # Finding Format For each meaningful finding: ```text ### Finding Severity: [...] Location: [...] Issue: [...] Why It Matters: [...] Recommended Change: [smallest appropriate correction] ``` --- # No-Issue Result It is acceptable to conclude: ```text No blocking or important issues found. ``` Do not invent findings to justify the review. --- # Red-Team Routing If the task is consequential and normal review passes, invoke: ```text .ai/skills/red-team/SKILL.md ``` for the relevant adversarial perspective. --- # Output Return: ```text ## Review Result PASS or CHANGES REQUIRED ## Blockers [...] ## Important Findings [...] ## Optional Improvements [...] ## Verification Notes [...] ``` Omit empty sections when they add no value.