What problem does it solve? Reviewing a change well requires pinning the right base commit, separating spec compliance from code standards, verifying every finding, and ending with a clear verdict — steps that are easy to skip under time pressure. On the receiving side, acting on review feedback without verifying it first produces wasted work and broken code. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Structured diff review: Pins a base ref with git rev-parse, takes a three-dot diff, reviews tests first, and reports Spec and Standards findings in separate severity-labelled sections ending with an explicit merge verdict. - Security-aware delta review: Escalates on high-risk triggers (removed guards, auth changes, value transfer) with git blame archaeology, caller-counted blast radius, coverage-gap severity elevation, and concrete attack scenarios written to a report file. - Responding to review feedback: Enforces clarify-before-implementing on unclear items, evidence-backed pushback, YAGNI checks via caller greps, and per-item tested implementation in blocking-then-trivial-then-structural order. - Use Case: A reviewer flags that a guard clause is unreachable and asks you to delete it. Instead of complying, you verify against the code, find the guard is reachable, and reply in the PR thread with the evidence and a full-SHA permalink. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to review the diff on your current branch against origin/main and report findings with severities and a merge verdict.
