Review perspective: Logic & Correctness

SkillSecurity

This skill is a review perspective for PostHog Review that guides an agent to check whether changed code does what it is supposed to do. It focuses on business logic, edge cases, data transformations, and query or data-access correctness. It reports correctness issues only, leaving security and performance to other review perspectives.

Use Review perspective: Logic & Correctness in Claude, ChatGPT or Ahel Desktop

Free. Sign in, add Review perspective: Logic & Correctness and connect your AI. About a minute.

Also: Claude Code · Cursor · Codex

Then ask your AI: use the Review perspective: Logic & Correctness skill

Details

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Have a pull request chunk or diff ready for review.

Review perspective: Logic & CorrectnessStart free

What your AI can do with it

  • Verify calculations, algorithms, and conditional logic for correctness
  • Check edge cases, boundary conditions, and off-by-one errors
  • Validate data mapping, state mutations, and type conversions
  • Review SQL queries, JOIN conditions, WHERE clauses, and aggregations
  • Check transaction boundaries and deterministic ordering
  • Inspect LLM prompts and output parsing for logic issues

Getting started

  1. Have a pull request chunk or diff ready for review.
  2. Add the review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness skill to your agent setup.
  3. Configure the agent to apply this perspective to the changed files.
  4. Run the review and collect the correctness findings it reports.

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by posthog/posthog in products/review_hog/skills/review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

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

Signals

GitHub stars
40k
Forks
3k
Last commit
Sep 2026

Questions

Does this skill report security or performance issues?
No. It reports correctness issues only. Security and performance are separate review perspectives.
What kinds of logic problems does it look for?
Wrong formulas, off-by-one errors, missed edge cases, incorrect data transformations, and query-logic errors such as bad JOIN conditions or aggregation mistakes.
Does it review test files?
No. It detects issues only in non-test files.
Can it check LLM prompt logic?
Yes, when applicable. It verifies prompts have clear instructions, checks for missing examples, validates output parsing, and ensures token-limit handling.
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness
Source
github.com/posthog/posthog