omh-code-review

# Code Review This is a Hermes-native `code-review` workflow skill. ## Why This Exists `code-review` exists to make review bug-first and evidence-grounded: findings must cite concrete files, diffs, commands, or artifacts before any summary or fix proposal. ## Do Not Use When - The user asks to implement the fix rather than review existing code or claims. - There is no diff, file set, claim, artifact, or expected behavior to review. - The request is broad product critique, strategy, or planning rather than code or evidence review. ## Examples Good example: - Prompt: $code-review review this PR for install/update UX regressions and missing tests. - Expected behavior: Lead with ranked findings, cite concrete evidence, then list open questions and test gaps. - Why: The task is explicitly review-shaped and has a behavioral risk surface. Bad example: - Prompt: $code-review add the missing setup flag and commit it. - Expected behavior: Route implementation to a selected executor/runtime after review findings are established. - Why: Review can identify the issue, but code mutation is a separate execution step. ## Completion Checklist - Findings come first and are ranked by severity before summary or praise. - Every finding cites file, diff, command output, artifact, or expected behavior evidence. - No-issue reviews still name residual risk, missing tests, and independent review evidence if unavailable. - Fix implementation, architecture follow-up, and CI/merge claims stay...