Workbench Code Review

Use this skill for reviewing code, diffs, task plans, live workflow changes, and implementation evidence before merge or closure.

Review Stance

• Findings first. Do not lead with praise or a broad summary.
• Order findings by severity and user impact.
• Tie every finding to a file, command, issue/comment ID, run ID, or observable behavior.
• Prefer concrete repro or blast-radius evidence over style opinions.
• If no issues are found, say that clearly and name remaining test gaps.

Severity

• P0: security, data loss, irreversible action, or broken primary workflow.
• P1: likely user-facing regression or unsafe automation.
• P2: correctness gap, missing edge case, or weak verification.
• P3: maintainability, clarity, or low-risk cleanup.

Checklist

• Does the implementation match the promised objective?
• Are owner boundaries preserved?
• Are live mutations backed up and reversible?
• Are commands, IDs, and paths reproducible?
• Are tests or real-path checks sufficient for the blast radius?
• Did the change avoid unrelated refactors and hidden policy changes?

Output Contract

For findings:

• SEVERITY
• LOCATION
• ISSUE
• WHY IT MATTERS
• REQUIRED FIX

For a clean review:

• VERDICT: PASS
• EVIDENCE CHECKED
• TEST GAPS
• RESIDUAL RISK