uinaf/review
Review existing code, diffs, branches, or pull requests using concern-specific reviewer personas and evidence. Use when auditing someone else's work, triaging risk in a PR, or producing a ship-it / needs-review / blocked verdict. Do not use to verify your own completed change; use `verify` for that.
98
100%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
92%
1.31xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Evaluation results
91%
17%Review: Payment Retry Logic Changes
CLAUDE.md loaded
100%
100%
File references in findings
100%
100%
Line-level evidence
100%
100%
Verdict present
100%
100%
Findings by severity
100%
100%
Error classification finding
100%
100%
Silent failure finding
100%
100%
Mock-heavy test concern
33%
100%
Dead code identified
0%
50%
Unverified surfaces marked
0%
25%
Recommended follow-up
100%
100%
No nit inflation
100%
100%
Personas listed
0%
100%
96%
28%Code Review: Authentication Middleware Refactor
Default personas used
0%
100%
Types persona included
70%
100%
Cleanup persona included
62%
100%
Comments persona omitted
100%
100%
Repo guidance loaded
100%
100%
Personas listed in output
0%
100%
Verdict present
37%
100%
Scope stated
100%
100%
Findings ordered by severity
100%
100%
Evidence for findings
100%
100%
Silent failures finding
100%
100%
Unverified areas acknowledged
33%
33%
Recommended follow-up
50%
100%
90%
22%Quick Review: Documentation Typo Fix
Minimal personas selected
83%
100%
General persona used
100%
100%
Comments persona used
80%
100%
Tests persona omitted
100%
100%
Verdict present
0%
100%
Scope stated
100%
100%
Personas listed in output
0%
100%
No nit inflation
100%
100%
Docstring accuracy noted
100%
100%
Unverified areas or residual risk
100%
100%
Recommended follow-up
0%
0%
- Evaluated
- Agent
- Claude
- Model
- Claude Sonnet 4.6