Generated banner for Review Hog Perspective Logic Correctness
Generated logo for Review Hog Perspective Logic Correctness

Review Hog Perspective Logic Correctness

PostHogOfficialPublished by PostHog

  • Skill
  • Review and audit
  • Software development
  • MIT
  • No issues found

From the author

Checks business logic, edge cases, data transformations, and queries. Reports correctness issues only.
— the description by PostHog

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

The Logic & Correctness review perspective provides a structured approach for auditing code changes to ensure they align with intended business requirements. It focuses on the functional accuracy of algorithms, data handling, and database interactions, deliberately excluding concerns like security, performance, or stylistic preferences to maintain a narrow, high-impact scope.

What it does

  • Validates business logic, calculations, and algorithmic implementation.
  • Checks for edge cases, boundary conditions, and off-by-one errors.
  • Audits data mapping, transformations, and state mutations for accuracy.
  • Reviews database queries, JOIN conditions, and transaction boundaries.
  • Evaluates LLM prompt logic, including output parsing and instruction clarity.
  • Provides specific search patterns to locate logic-heavy code sections.

When to use it

  • During pull request reviews to ensure functional correctness.
  • When auditing complex data processing or transformation pipelines.
  • When verifying database query logic and data-access layers.
  • When reviewing components that handle critical state management.

Advantages

  • Reduces cognitive load by isolating logic verification from other review concerns.
  • Ensures consistent focus on functional requirements across different reviewers.
  • Provides actionable search patterns to quickly identify relevant code blocks.
  • Prevents logic-related bugs by mandating checks for edge cases and boundary conditions.

Usage examples

“Review this PR chunk for logic and correctness.”
The agent will analyze the code for algorithmic errors, incorrect data transformations, and faulty query logic, reporting only functional correctness issues.
“Are there any edge cases missing in this data transformation function?”
The agent will examine the function's logic against boundary conditions and data mapping requirements to identify potential gaps.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/posthog/review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness/download
  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by PostHog

Review perspective: Logic & Correctness

You are reviewing a PR chunk through the Logic & Correctness perspective: does the code do what it is supposed to do? Concentrate on business-logic correctness, edge cases, data transformations, and query / data-access logic.

This is one of several independent perspectives reviewing the same chunk in parallel — security and performance are covered elsewhere. Stay in your lane, and report every correctness issue you find without worrying about what another perspective might also report (overlap is resolved later by a separate deduplication step).

Primary investigation areas

  1. Business logic implementation

    • Verify calculations and algorithms are correct

    • Check for off-by-one errors and boundary conditions

    • Validate conditional logic and branching

    • Ensure edge cases are handled properly

    • Verify assumptions about data are valid

  2. Data transformations & mutations

    • Check data mapping between layers is accurate

    • Verify state mutations (especially in frontend code)

    • Ensure no data loss during transformations

    • Validate type coercions and conversions

  3. Query & data-access logic

    • Verify SQL / database queries are correct

    • Validate that sync SQL queries aren't issued from an async context (blocking the thread)

    • Check JOIN conditions and WHERE clauses

    • Validate aggregation logic

    • Ensure deterministic ordering where needed

    • Check transaction boundaries

  4. LLM prompt engineering (if applicable)

    • Verify prompts have clear, unambiguous instructions

    • Check for missing examples in prompts

    • Validate output parsing logic

    • Ensure token-limit handling

Investigation commands

  • Find calculation logic: rg "calculate|compute|aggregate" --type py -A 5

  • Check conditionals: rg "if.*else|switch|case" --type py -B 2 -A 5

  • Find data transformations: rg "map|transform|convert|parse" --type py -A 3

  • Locate queries: rg "SELECT|JOIN|WHERE|GROUP BY" --type sql -A 10

  • Find state mutations: rg "setState|mutation|update.*state" --type js --type tsx -A 3

Where to focus

Concentrate on files that carry real logic:

  • Business-logic implementation files

  • Data transformation and processing code

  • Database query files and data-access layers

  • API handlers and service implementations

  • Frontend components with logic (not just UI)

Read documentation and pure configuration files for context, but don't raise logic findings on them — and detect issues only in non-test files (test files have their own patterns; reference them for context when validating a finding in production code).

What to leave to other perspectives

  • Performance optimizations and error-handling completeness → Performance & Reliability

  • Security vulnerabilities and API-contract changes → Contracts & Security

  • Code style or formatting → not a PostHog Review concern

Key questions

  • Does the implementation match the intended behavior?

  • Are all edge cases and error conditions handled?

  • Is the logic flow clear and correct?

  • Are calculations and transformations accurate?

  • Do queries return the expected results?

  • Is data integrity maintained throughout operations?

What a valid finding looks like

A Logic & Correctness finding relates to:

  • Incorrect logic or algorithms

  • Missing edge-case handling

  • Wrong calculations or formulas

  • Incorrect data transformations

  • Query-logic errors

  • State-management bugs

  • Incorrect assumptions about data

Files

ATTRIBUTION.md

Attribution

This folder is an unmodified copy of the Agent Skill "review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness", distributed by AutoGineer (https://autogineer.com/agent-skills).

The skill's own files are unmodified copies. AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by the author or the publisher.

Files added by AutoGineer

  • ATTRIBUTION.md: this file, written by AutoGineer

  • LICENSE: copied from LICENSE

Requirements and compatibility

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Security

No issues found by our static scan· No issues found

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

Published by
PostHog
Publisher
PostHog (Official)
Source
PostHog/skills · skills/omnibus/review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness · commit a5d30e7
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by PostHog.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness.zip