Use `review-agent` on implementation or repair diffs for hallucinated APIs, unsupported assumptions, unsafe abstractions, and dependency or regression risks. Skip work without a diff or after reviewer edits.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add machenjie/rd-skills --skill ai-code-review-refactor --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ai Code Review Refactor?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/machenjie-ai-code-review-refactor)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ai-code-review-refactor
description: "Use `review-agent` on implementation or repair diffs for hallucinated APIs, unsupported assumptions, unsafe abstractions, and dependency or regression risks. Skip work without a diff or after reviewer edits."
---
# ai-code-review-refactor
## Role
Support `review-agent` in finding reachable defects in AI-generated code
through API, dependency, and behavior evidence.
## When To Use
- implementation diff ready
- repair diff ready for re-review
## Do Not Use
- no actual diff
- reviewer implemented changed scope
## Required Inputs
- Goal, Acceptance, and Non-goals
- Write Scope and invariants
- Effective Level and triggered professional gates
- actual diff
- validation evidence
## Professional Decision Rules
- Limit the matrix to the Current Task Boundary (Goal + Acceptance + Non-goals), latest actual diff, and reachable impact; context reads grant no repair authority.
- Prioritize correctness, security, data-loss, compatibility, concurrency, failure, and regression defects.
- Classify relation before severity: only accepted `current-task` findings enter repair, `scope-blocker` returns through Main to analysis, and `adjacent` stays non-blocking with residual risk.
- Apply Core `review_discipline_contract.effective_level_policy` for L1-L5
depth, independence, gates, and final-review requirements.
- Never equate L5 with full CI, formal release, or cross-model review.
- Delegate for concrete risk with Skill, Scope, and Reason; specialist review
supplements final implementation review.
- Let the review owner merge specialist findings.
- Apply Core `review_discipline_contract` for review boundaries, evidence reuse,
material findings, scoped repair, and obligation subsumption.
## High-Value Gotchas
- Self-review is not independent evidence.
- Reviewing only the summary misses unmentioned changed files.
## Execution Checklist
1. Compare the actual diff and every changed path with acceptance and preserved behavior.
2. Verify referenced APIs, dependencies, ownership, invariants, and changed-code test coverage.
3. Classify relation before severity and blocker, then route only accepted `current-task` blockers to repair.
4. Stop approval when the diff, a changed path, or evidence freshness cannot be established.
5. Re-review repaired findings and affected dependents with fresh targeted
validation; broaden at the Core contract's named shared-risk boundaries.
## Stop / Escalation Conditions
- Escalate authentication, authorization, permissions, payments, sensitive
data, secrets, or credentials to `security-privacy-gate`.
- Escalate unsafe logs, raw prompts, tokens, PII, or full command-output artifacts
to `security-privacy-gate`.
- Escalate to `data-api-contract-changer` when a refactor silently alters API response shapes, error codes, or contract semantics.
- Escalate to `architecture-impact-reviewer` when AI introduces a new service boundary, shared abstraction, or cross-module dependency.
- Escalate to `data-middleware-change-builder` when a generated migration script, ORM query, or schema change is involved.
- Escalate when AI has added or upgraded a dependency with known CVEs, GPL/AGPL license conflict, or broad transitive attack surface.
- Escalate when the refactor is large enough that behavioral equivalence cannot be established without running the full integration test suite.
- Keep missing or stale evidence required for the current diff, scope, or closure
as a blocking finding; name the unavailable evidence and unblock condition.
- For repeated same-path failure, follow the Core `retry_policy`: return control
to the main agent or report the review blocked.
- Return a new L4/L5 risk that invalidates Effective Level blocked through Main for Brief update and recomputation.
- Return Effective Level changes through Main for analysis.
- Route a known failure mechanism with material same-pattern regression exposure
to `regression-testing`; otherwise keep recurrence scope and exclusions in the
review finding.
- Escalate to `code-element-professionalism` for generated local defaults, shadowing, hidden expression side effects, no-op statements, cleanup gaps, fallthrough, or event-before-commit ordering.
## Output Contract
- reviewed files
- unreviewed files with reason and residual risk
- reachable findings with relation, severity, blocker decision, path, failure scenario, evidence, correction, and adjacent residual risk
- verified API, dependency, invariant, placement, and behavior decisions
- changed-code test evidence and unverified AI-specific risk
- explicit no-finding result when no reachable defect remains
## Targeted References
| Path | Type | Load when | Do not load when | Required by | Required output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ai review pattern catalog](references/ai-review-pattern-catalog.md) | benchmark-pattern | Findings need pattern-calibrated examples for recurring AI failure modes | The issue is already concrete and no calibration examples are needed | review-agent | option-comparison, selected-approach |
| [checklist](references/checklist.md) | decision-checklist | A bounded review needs a compact checklist before approval | Pattern examples or exhaustive gates are required | review-agent | checklist-result, residual-risk |
| [index](references/index.md) | index | competing ai code review refactor references require dependency, conflict, or output-fragment selection | the ai code review refactor root or a task-named reference already resolves selection | review-agent | reference-selection |
| [review output and gates](references/review-output-and-gates.md) | targeted | L5 review needs exhaustive schema, quality gates, handoff routing, or repair/re-review semantics | A compact severity finding list is sufficient | review-agent | gate-decision, residual-risk |
| [solution optimality](references/solution-optimality.md) | targeted | An AI-generated diff introduces a material algorithm, data-structure, concurrency, cache, abstraction, or measurable resource-use choice | The issue is already a concrete finding or no material implementation choice changed | review-agent | selected-approach, residual-risk |
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!