Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

python-code-reviewer

Review, run, debug, and verify approved Python modeling code against its code plan, data contract, method decision, risk conditions, and experiment outputs, saving one compact JSON review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md2.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Preconditions

  • Python code and code/Qx/qx_code_plan.md exist.
  • Approved method decision, method card, data profile, and relevant run summary are available.
  • Required inputs are accessible.

Workflow

  1. Resolve the approved main and usable baseline. Flag scripts for unapproved candidates unless a fallback activation exists.
  2. Inspect and run the code in the intended order.
  3. Evaluate required checks:
    • syntax: imports, execution, exceptions, and obvious runtime faults.
    • input_contract: paths, fields, units, shapes, missing-data handling, and raw-data protection.
    • method_alignment: formulas, objectives, constraints, assumptions, main/baseline roles, and fallback scope match the approved plan.
    • reproducibility: seed, deterministic setup, dependency/runtime record, and rerun consistency.
    • output_contract: saved tables/metrics/figures, valid run summary, comparable main/baseline metrics, degeneracy evidence, and fallback-trigger state.
  4. Add risk-specific checks only when relevant, such as leakage, constraint feasibility, numerical stability, or scale.
  5. If asked to fix findings, make minimal changes, rerun affected checks, and record the repair. Otherwise report findings without changing code.
  6. Save code/Qx/reviews/qx_python_review.json.

Review Schema

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "question_id": "Q1",
  "language": "python",
  "reviewed_files": [],
  "decision_id": "q1_method_choice",
  "checks": {
    "syntax": {"status": "PASS", "evidence": []},
    "input_contract": {"status": "PASS", "evidence": []},
    "method_alignment": {"status": "PASS", "evidence": []},
    "reproducibility": {"status": "PASS", "evidence": []},
    "output_contract": {"status": "PASS", "evidence": []}
  },
  "findings": [],
  "verdict": "PASSED",
  "reviewed_at": "ISO-8601"
}

Statuses are PASS, FAIL, or NOT_APPLICABLE with a reason. Any required FAIL blocks G3.

Rules

  • Do not pad evidence to reach a count.
  • Do not fabricate execution or outputs.
  • Do not approve a toy diagnostic reference as the official baseline.
  • Do not silently change mathematical meaning.
  • Do not create success logs beyond the review JSON.
  • Treat code newer than its review as requiring the affected checks to rerun, not necessarily the entire pipeline.

Verification

  • Every required named check has concrete evidence.
  • Main and baseline are approved and comparable.
  • Run summary and on-disk outputs agree.
  • Review verdict follows check statuses.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Detect whether approved modeling code is Python or MATLAB/Beita Tianyuan and route it to the matching reviewer using the compact named-check review contract.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1KUpdated Sep 24, 2026

Audit whether the semantic evidence required by the active lean or submission profile exists and is current, without requiring one verbose artifact per skill or an arbitrary number of pass bullets.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1KUpdated Sep 24, 2026

Run scoped or final cross-media consistency checks for mathematical-modeling artifacts, comparing canonical numbers, symbols, parameters, decisions, files, and paper claims without performing full-workspace audits for low-risk changes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1KUpdated Sep 24, 2026

Map contest attachments to subquestions, audit and clean raw data, and emit one reusable data profile with quality, coverage, imbalance, concentration, and method-readiness evidence for downstream risk screening.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1KUpdated Sep 24, 2026

Build one compact choice card at a genuine mathematical-modeling judgment point. Use before method screening, after a meaningful experiment, or before final claim/freeze approval so the human chooses the trade-off while AI handles mechanical consequences.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1KUpdated Sep 24, 2026

Plan the smallest set of diagnostic, comparison, paper, and appendix figures or tables needed to support verified mathematical-modeling decisions and claims.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

zhnnky329/MathModeling-skills1.1KUpdated Sep 24, 2026

See all skills by zhnnky329

Report a problem with this skill