---

name: reviewing-code description: Reviews a diff or file for bugs, security issues, and missing tests, returning prioritized findings. Use when the user asks for a code review, a PR review, or "what's wrong with this code".

Reviewing Code

Review the supplied diff or file and report concrete, actionable findings. Prefer a few high-signal issues over an exhaustive list of nitpicks.

Process

1. Read the change and infer its intent.
2. Look, in priority order, for:
   • Correctness — logic errors, off-by-one, wrong/missing error handling, unhandled None/null, race conditions, resource leaks.
   • Security — injection, path traversal, secrets in code, unsafe deserialization, missing authz/authn checks.
   • Tests — untested new behavior; the specific case that would catch a bug.
   • Clarity — naming, dead code, or duplication that will mislead the next reader. Only if it materially hurts maintainability.
3. Skip style a linter/formatter already enforces.

Output

For each finding, one bullet:

- [severity] file:line — problem, then the fix in one clause.

Use severity blocker, major, or minor. End with a one-line verdict: APPROVE, APPROVE WITH NITS, or REQUEST CHANGES. If you find nothing substantive, say so plainly rather than inventing issues.