agent-code-reviewlisted

# Agent code review Agents catch a real class of defects consistently and produce confident false positives just as consistently. The value comes from scoping the review and verifying findings rather than accepting the list. ## Method 1. **Review the diff, not the repository.** A focused review of what changed produces specific findings; a whole-codebase review produces generic advice (see code-review). 2. **Give the intent of the change.** What it is meant to do, so the review can judge whether it does (see agent-context-setup). 3. **Ask for one dimension at a time.** Correctness, then security, then performance. A single pass over everything covers each shallowly (see agent-quality-council). 4. **Require evidence for each finding.** The specific line and a concrete failure scenario, since findings without them are usually pattern-matching (see agent-generate-and-verify). 5. **Verify before acting.** Confirm the issue is real in your codebase, because plausible-sounding findings about code that does not behave that way are common. 6. **Use it before human review, not instead.** It clears mechanical issues so human reviewers spend attention on design. 7. **Feed recurring findings into the instruction file.** A rule the agent keeps flagging belongs written down (see agent-instruction-files). ## Boundaries Agent review supplements human review and cannot judge whether the change is the right thing to build. It lacks the system context a