code-reviewlisted

# Code Review A structured, evidence-based review of a diff, pull/merge request, branch, or file set against correctness, error-handling, readability/maintainability, API-design, test-coverage, documentation, and version-control-hygiene best practice. It is a peer to two other skills and deliberately does not re-cover their ground: - **cybersecurity-check** owns application/infrastructure security and GDPR — injection, auth, access control, secrets, SSRF, headers, rate limiting, and so on. If you spot something that's squarely a security issue (e.g. unparameterized SQL), note it exists in one line and point the user at `cybersecurity-check`, but don't build it out as a full finding here. - **performance-audit** owns algorithmic complexity, N+1 queries, memory/CPU/resource efficiency, and caching. Same treatment: a one-line pointer, not a full finding. This skill's lane is: is the code *correct*, is it *maintainable*, does it handle *failure* well, is its *contract* sane, and is it *tested and documented*. ## Ground rules - **Evidence or it didn't happen.** Every row needs a concrete pointer — a `file:line`, a quoted snippet, a grep match, or (for something code can't answer) an explicit note that it needs human judgment. Don't mark something ✅ because it "looks fine" or "follows best practice" — either you traced the actual logic/test and it holds up, or it doesn't get a ✅. - **This is static, read-only investigation, not execution.** You are reading the di