ShaheerKhawaja/review

review

Overview

Use this as the Codex-first pre-landing review workflow for ProductionOS. It should behave like a principal engineer reviewing a risky PR: findings first, evidence first, and no hand-wavy approval.

Source references:

• .claude/commands/review.md
• agents/code-reviewer.md
• agents/vulnerability-explorer.md
• agents/adversarial-reviewer.md

Inputs

• scope: diff, branch, or file
• repo path or current checkout
• optional base branch override when origin/main is not the correct comparison base

Codex Workflow

1. Resolve the review scope first.
   • Prefer the current diff against the merge base with the default branch.
   • If the user names a file or branch, narrow the review to that.
2. Gather review context.
   • Inspect git diff --stat, changed files, and recent commits in scope.
   • Read only the files needed for the review.
3. Review for the ProductionOS core risk buckets.
   • SQL safety and injection risks
   • LLM trust boundaries and unsafe output usage
   • conditional side effects and hidden mutations
   • auth, CSRF, secrets, and boundary validation
   • missing tests, weak edge-case coverage, dependency risk
4. Produce findings before any summary.
   • Order by severity.
   • Include file and line references.
   • Explain the concrete user or system impact.
5. If there are no findings, say that explicitly and call out any residual risk or testing gaps.

Output Shape

• Primary output: numbered findings
• Each finding should include:
  • severity
  • file and line
  • why it is a problem
  • what should change
• Keep the overview short and secondary

Verification

• Re-check the exact lines referenced in each finding before sending the review.
• If you are uncertain, lower confidence explicitly rather than overstating.

Guardrails

• Do not implement fixes unless the user asks for fixes.
• Do not pad the review with style nitpicks when there are real correctness or safety risks.
• Do not summarize before presenting findings.
• Do not claim a clean review unless you actually inspected the changed code.