Review Hog Perspective Logic Correctness

作者 PostHog469d1773e9cb無授權條款收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日

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.

AI 產生的概覽

作為 PostHog Review 的一個視角,僅審查拉取請求程式碼變更中的邏輯與正確性問題。

功能
此技能定義了單一審查視角——邏輯與正確性,用來檢查拉取請求中的某個程式碼片段。它引導審查者檢查業務邏輯、邊界情況、資料轉換與變更、查詢與資料存取邏輯,以及 LLM 提示處理,並且只回報正確性問題。它提供調查領域、範例搜尋指令、關注重點指引,以及有效發現的判定清單。
適用情境
適用於審查程式碼變更以確認其行為是否符合預期,尤其是邏輯密集的檔案,例如服務實作、資料處理程式碼與查詢層。它設計為與其他視角並行使用,因為安全、效能與契約問題已明確交由其他視角處理。
執行需求
不包含指令碼或套件,僅為指示。它假定可以存取待審查的拉取請求程式碼片段,並可使用程式碼搜尋工具(如 ripgrep)執行建議的指令。

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

來源與署名

來源:PostHog/ai-plugin位於skills/review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness提交469d177

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架

更多來自 PostHog/ai-plugin 的技能

Writing Simplified Technical English

PostHog

套用 ASD-STE100 簡化技術英語規則,讓代理撰寫的文字語意明確、方便執行。

Writing & Content2026年10月8日

Working With Task Comments

PostHog

透過 PostHog MCP exec 調度器讀取並解讀 PostHog 任務、成品和畫布上的留言。

Productivity & Workflow2026年10月8日

Working With Skills

PostHog

指導代理使用 PostHog 的 skill-* MCP 工具來探索、讀取、建立、更新與重構技能。

AI & Agents2026年10月8日

Working With Scouts

PostHog

說明如何把監看工作委派給 PostHog Signals 偵察代理、處理其回報,並長期調校整個代理團隊的操作手冊。

AI & Agents2026年10月8日

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.

待分類2026年10月8日

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.

待分類2026年10月8日