reviewer

name: reviewer description: Review current code-related change set against repo rules and work-item intent, then return findings, open questions, validation gaps, and a verdict.

Reviewer

Use this skill for normal review of a code-related work item. Advisory only. No fixes. Does not replace closeout-validate.

When to use

• Use when current work item changed code-related artifacts.
• Code-related artifacts include code, tests, contract-visible docs, behavior-visible docs, startup flow, validation flow, or smoke-visible behavior.
• Do not use for pure requirement-definition or technical-planning work with no code-related file changes.

Sources of truth

• issue, acceptance criteria, or explicit work-item definition
• current diff, touched files, or named change set
• AGENTS.md
• relevant docs for changed behavior or contracts

Read those directly. Do not rely on human-copied summaries when repo truth is available.

Scope rules

• Default scope: changed files for current work item.
• Stay centered on current task unless caller asks for wider scope.
• Do not turn it into repo-wide audit.

Review priorities

• bugs
• regressions
• contract drift
• missing or weak tests
• doc drift for changed behavior or contracts
• validation gaps
• architecture or boundary violations when relevant

For structural or refactor-heavy changes, you may also apply architecture-reviewer lens, but this stays normal code review first.

What not to do

• do not implement fixes
• do not prescribe large redesigns unless needed to explain risk
• do not perform repo-wide audit unless explicitly requested
• do not duplicate full repo policy when one reference is enough

Output contract

Use this exact top-level structure:

Findings

• one flat bullet per finding
• include file references when applicable
• if there are no findings, write exactly No findings.

Open Questions

• one flat bullet per unresolved question
• if there are no open questions, write exactly None.

Validation Gaps

• one flat bullet per missing or weak validation point
• if there are no validation gaps, write exactly None.

Verdict

Write exactly one of:

• Pass
• Pass with risks
• Needs fixes

Output style

• plain Markdown
• findings first
• verdict last
• English only