axium-labs/ax/code-review

Code review

Use the scope requested by the user. For a diff, commit or pull request review, read the complete relevant diff and enough surrounding code to understand each changed path. For a whole-project or existing-code audit, inspect the requested modules and their interactions, including pre-existing issues. Read repository instructions and check call sites/tests before reporting a defect. Continue through the requested scope after finding an issue.

For a branch review, resolve the comparison ref and use the merge base so the review covers the changes that would merge. For a commit or uncommitted work, inspect that exact target. If the target is ambiguous, infer it from the current task and repository state before asking.

For change reviews, default to discrete, actionable regressions introduced by the change. If the user requests a broader audit or pre-existing issues, include those findings and distinguish them from newly introduced regressions. For whole-project audits, do not limit findings to a recent diff. Explain the failure scenario or concrete impact and cite the smallest useful file and line. Avoid speculation and cosmetic preferences; when the user requests style/convention review, assess against the requested standards.

Present findings first, ordered by severity: P0 for a critical release blocker, P1 for urgent defects, P2 for ordinary defects, and P3 for lower-impact defects. If there are no findings, say so. Briefly mention the review scope and any material verification gap. Treat a review request as read-only unless the user also asks for fixes.

Adapted for AX from Codex's review-agent sample skill.