Initial commit

.codex-home/skills/.system/review-agent/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+name: review-agent
+description: Perform a read-only, defect-first review of a specified code change and return every actionable finding. Use when another agent delegates review of uncommitted changes, a base-branch diff, a commit, or custom review instructions.
+---
+
+# Review Agent
+
+Inspect the requested target directly and return every finding that the author would likely fix.
+Do not modify files, create commits, push branches, post review comments, or delegate the review
+to another agent.
+
+## Review the change
+
+1. Read the applicable `AGENTS.md` instructions.
+2. Inspect the complete diff for the requested target and enough surrounding code to understand
+   each changed path.
+3. Identify concrete regressions introduced by the change. Continue through the whole diff after
+   finding the first issue.
+4. Check the relevant tests and call sites to confirm that each finding is real and actionable.
+
+For a base-branch review, compare the changes that would actually merge rather than diffing
+directly against the branch tip. Resolve the comparison ref to the branch's upstream when that
+upstream exists and is ahead of the local branch; otherwise use the local branch. Run
+`git merge-base HEAD <comparison-ref>`, then inspect `git diff <merge-base-sha>`. If the local
+branch cannot be resolved, try its configured upstream explicitly before reporting that the target
+is unavailable.
+
+Flag an issue only when all of these are true:
+
+- It affects correctness, security, performance, or maintainability in a meaningful way.
+- It is discrete and actionable.
+- It was introduced by the reviewed change.
+- The affected scenario or call path can be demonstrated from the code.
+- The author would probably fix it if they knew about it.
+
+Do not flag speculative concerns, pre-existing problems, intentional behavior changes, or style
+nits that do not obscure the code.
+
+## Write the result
+
+Present findings first, ordered by severity. Use one entry per issue in this form:
+
+`[P1] Imperative finding title — path/to/file.rs:line`
+
+Follow the title with one short paragraph explaining the affected scenario and why the behavior is
+wrong. Keep the cited range as small as possible and make sure it overlaps the reviewed diff.
+
+Use these priorities:
+
+- `P0`: universal release blocker or critical failure.
+- `P1`: urgent defect that should be fixed next.
+- `P2`: ordinary defect that should be fixed.
+- `P3`: low-impact issue that is still worth fixing.
+
+If there are no qualifying findings, say `No findings.` Do not invent a finding to fill the result.
+After the findings, add a brief overall assessment and mention any material test gaps or residual
+risks.