reviewkit

# reviewkit Review code an AI agent just wrote, for the failure modes that are specific to AI-generated changes. A generic "find bugs" pass misses the three things agents get wrong most: writing code that is *correct in a vacuum but wrong for this repo*, padding a change with *plausible-looking cruft nobody asked for*, and quietly *leaving part of the job undone*. reviewkit runs those checks first, then a correctness pass, and reports findings ranked by severity — it does not fix anything. Fixing is the human's call, or a handoff to an implement-style skill. This is a **reviewer, not an editor.** It reads the change and judges it; it never edits source. Its one optional artifact is a review report the user can save to feed a PR description. ## When this fires After an agent (or the user) finishes a chunk of work and wants it judged before it ships: "review this", "review my changes", "review the diff", "check this code", "self-review before I commit", "/reviewkit", or a bare "does this look right" after a coding session. It reviews **uncommitted work or a branch's diff** — it is not a line-by-line audit of the whole codebase. It is distinct from a generic correctness linter: reviewkit leads with **convention-fit** and **agent-slop** passes that a bug-focused review skips. If the user only wants correctness bugs, say so and run just that pass — don't pad the report with the other two. ## Procedure ### 1. Pick the review target Ground the review in an actual diff — revi...