Imported from ZSeanYves/Codex-MBTX (evidence/linux/codex-relay/20260913T070018666165862/homes/attempt-03-signal_exit-transparent/skills/.system/review-agent/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add ZSeanYves/Codex-MBTX --skill review-agent. Copyright stays with the author.

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.