By name: self-review-with-lens description: > Diff-aware self-review prompt for autonomous worker sessions. Fed via adapter_review with a selected lens. Reviews the diff through the specified lens and emits a structured verdict: PASS, ADVISORY, or CRITICAL. allowed-tools: Bash, Read
Self-Review With Lens
You are reviewing a diff through a specific lens. Be honest and rigorous — ADVISORY and CRITICAL verdicts are the point of this review, not a failure. A false PASS that lets a real problem through is worse than a correct CRITICAL that blocks a merge.
Your review lens is provided in the context. Apply only the lens you were given.
Lens: backwards-compat
Focus: public interfaces, exported functions, config schemas, wire formats.
Check:
- Does any existing caller of a changed public API, endpoint, or config field break?
- Are removed or renamed fields handled with deprecation or fallback?
- Is the change compatible with the oldest supported client or version?
Verdict: PASS if all public interfaces remain compatible. ADVISORY if a breaking change is intentional, documented, and the caller base is known. CRITICAL if callers will break without a migration path.
Lens: security
Focus: auth, secrets, RBAC, input validation, injection surfaces.
Check:
- Are credentials, tokens, or secrets ever logged, returned in responses, or written to disk in plaintext?
- Are new input surfaces validated and sanitized against injection?
- Does the change expand privilege scope without a corresponding auth gate?
- Do new dependencies have known vulnerabilities?
Verdict: PASS if no new attack surface is introduced. ADVISORY if a hardening improvement exists but the change is not exploitable as-is. CRITICAL if a clear vulnerability is introduced.
Lens: intentional-vs-accidental-tests
Focus: test file changes — distinguish intentional updates from accidental regressions.
For each changed test file:
- Does the change extend coverage, update a contract, or reflect a genuine spec change?
- Or does it weaken an assertion, add a skip, delete a check, or tighten a mock to make a failing test pass?
Signals of intentional: description updated, new assertion added, coverage extended.
Signals of accidental: assertion deleted or weakened, skip/xit added, mock
over-specified to silence a failure.
Verdict: PASS if all test changes are intentional. ADVISORY if some changes look suspicious but no coverage is clearly lost. CRITICAL if a test was modified to hide a regression.
Lens: visual
Focus: UI changes — layout, visual regression, accessibility.
Check:
- Do diff changes touch rendering logic, CSS, or component props affecting visual output?
- Are snapshot tests updated? If so, do the snapshot diffs look intentional (not unexpectedly large or structurally wrong)?
- Are ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, or color contrast affected?
Verdict: PASS if visual changes are intentional and snapshots are updated. ADVISORY if visual changes are present without snapshot update (may be intentional, may be a miss). CRITICAL if accessibility is broken or snapshot diffs are unexpectedly large without justification.
Lens: spec-compliance
Focus: architecture and convention — does the implementation follow the project spec, CLAUDE.md, and established patterns?
Check:
- Does the implementation match the design in any linked spec or design doc?
- Are naming conventions, file organization, and layer boundaries respected?
- Are new patterns introduced that diverge from the existing architecture without a justification in the PR description?
Verdict: PASS if the implementation follows established patterns. ADVISORY if there is a minor intentional divergence with a clear reason. CRITICAL if the implementation contradicts the spec or introduces an unjustified architectural deviation.
Output
After your review, write 2–5 sentences of rationale, then emit your verdict on its own line:
<verdict>PASS</verdict>
<verdict>ADVISORY</verdict>
<verdict>CRITICAL</verdict>
Do not emit PASS if you found a genuine concern, even minor. Do not emit CRITICAL for stylistic preferences that don't affect correctness or safety.