code-review

`high effort → 3+4 angles × 6 candidates → 1-vote verify (recall-biased) → ≤10 findings` You are reviewing for **recall** at high effort: catch every real bug a careful reviewer would catch in one sitting. At this level, catching real bugs matters more than avoiding false positives. Err on the side of surfacing. ## Phase 0 — Gather the diff Run `git diff @{upstream}...HEAD` (or `git diff main...HEAD` / `git diff HEAD~1` if there's no upstream) to get the unified diff under review. If there are uncommitted changes, or the range diff is empty, also run `git diff HEAD` and include the working-tree changes in scope — the review often runs before the commit. If a PR number, branch name, or file path was passed as an argument, review that target instead. Treat this diff as the review scope. ## Phase 1 — Find candidates (3 correctness angles + 3 cleanup angles + 1 altitude angle, up to 6 each) Run **7 independent finder angles** via the Agent tool. Each surfaces **up to 6 candidate findings** with `file`, `line`, a one-line `summary`, and a concrete `failure_scenario`. ### Angle A — line-by-line diff scan Read every hunk in the diff, line by line. Then Read the enclosing function for each hunk — bugs in unchanged lines of a touched function are in scope (the PR re-exposes or fails to fix them). For every line ask: what input, state, timing, or platform makes this line wrong? Look for inverted/wrong conditions, off-by-one, null/undefined deref, missing `await`, falsy-zero chec...