Review Hog Perspective Logic Correctness

by PostHog469d1773e9cbNo licenseListed Oct 8, 2026Updated Oct 8, 2026

The Logic & Correctness review perspective for PostHog Review. Verifies that changed code does what it is supposed to do: business logic, edge cases, data transformations, and query / data-access correctness. Reports correctness issues only; security and performance are separate perspectives.

Instructions onlySoftware Development
AI-generated overview

Reviews pull-request code changes for logic and correctness issues only, as one perspective in PostHog Review.

What it does
This skill defines a single review perspective, Logic & Correctness, for examining a chunk of a pull request. It directs the reviewer to check business logic, edge cases, data transformations and mutations, query and data-access logic, and LLM prompt handling, and to report only correctness findings. It supplies investigation areas, example search commands, focus guidance, and a list of what counts as a valid finding.
When to use it
Use it when reviewing changed code to verify it does what it is supposed to do, especially logic-heavy files such as service implementations, data processing code, and query layers. It is meant to run alongside other perspectives, since security, performance, and contract concerns are explicitly left to them.
Requirements
No scripts or packages are included; it is instructions only. It assumes access to the pull-request chunk under review and to a code search tool such as ripgrep for the suggested commands.

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

Source and attribution

Source:PostHog/ai-plugininskills/review-hog-perspective-logic-correctnessat commit469d177

License: No license

Content belongs to its original authors. SourceWeft indexes it from a public repository.

Report or request removal

More from PostHog/ai-plugin

Writing Simplified Technical English

PostHog

Applies ASD-STE100 simplified technical English rules to make agent-written prose unambiguous and actionable.

Writing & ContentOct 8, 2026

Working With Task Comments

PostHog

Reads and interprets comments on PostHog tasks, artifacts, and canvases through the PostHog MCP exec dispatcher.

Productivity & WorkflowOct 8, 2026

Working With Skills

PostHog

Guides agents in using PostHog's skill-* MCP tools to discover, read, create, update, and refactor skills.

AI & AgentsOct 8, 2026

Working With Scouts

PostHog

Operating manual for delegating watching jobs to PostHog Signals scouts, acting on their reports, and steering the fleet over time.

AI & AgentsOct 8, 2026

Validating And Publishing Canvases

PostHog

Validate and publish a canvas source project safely: the source-project shape, declared capabilities, reading the current version pointer, iterating on validation diagnostics, guarded publishing with expected_current_version_id, staging a draft build and promoting it, waiting out the queued build, and recovering from a 409 version_conflict or a 429 capacity limit without overwriting concurrent work. Use whenever a canvas edit is ready to save, a draft build is wanted, a canvas publish or build returns diagnostics or a conflict, or a task needs to understand canvas version history.

Awaiting classificationOct 8, 2026

Understanding Billing Usage

PostHog

Explains PostHog billing usage and spend from the customer's visible Billing MCP tools. Use when the user asks why usage or spend is high, which product or project is driving usage, what a usage type means, how to reduce usage, what changed over time, why they got a usage change alert, or whether a spike/drop alert was real or noisy. Also use before product-specific analytics skills when the user names a billable PostHog product metric such as events, recordings, feature flag requests, exceptions, survey responses, synced rows, logs, AI events, AI credits, or Inbox credits. Starts from Billing usage/spend tools, then routes to customer-visible product MCP surfaces for deeper investigation.

Awaiting classificationOct 8, 2026