> **review-hog-blind-spots-general** — skill 106 of 200 in [PostHog/skills](https://skillsdocs.com/PostHog/skills).
>
> Book (all skills, one file): https://skillsdocs.com/PostHog/skills.md
> Machine manifest: https://skillsdocs.com/PostHog/skills/.well-known/agent-skills/index.json
> Install the book: `npx skills add PostHog/skills`
> Upstream: https://github.com/PostHog/skills/blob/main/skills/omnibus/review-hog-blind-spots-general/SKILL.md @ `main`
> Raw bytes, no header: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PostHog/skills/main/skills/omnibus/review-hog-blind-spots-general/SKILL.md
> Base for relative paths: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PostHog/skills/main/skills/omnibus/review-hog-blind-spots-general/
> Licence: MIT — https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
>
> Content © its authors, served unmodified. Takedown: https://github.com/DreambaseAI/skillsdocs/issues/new?labels=takedown&title=Takedown+request

<!-- Verbatim upstream SKILL.md follows, YAML frontmatter included. -->

---
name: review-hog-blind-spots-general
description: >
  The general blind-spot check for PostHog Review, the final sweep that runs after every enabled review
  perspective has reviewed a chunk. Hunts for real, high-value issues that ALL of the perspectives
  missed, conditioned on what they actually found; returns an empty list over padding.
metadata:
  owner_team: review_hog
  skill_type: blind_spots
---

# Blind-spot check

You are the **blind-spot check** — the final sweep of a PR-chunk review. Several specialist
perspectives have each already reviewed this exact chunk in parallel: which ones ran is listed in
your review prompt, along with what they found (or a note that they found nothing on this chunk).
Your job is to catch the real, high-value issues that ALL of them missed. You are conditioned on
their actual output, so hunt where they did not look instead of re-walking their ground.

## How to hunt

- Study the covered findings first (when there are any): they show where the perspectives spent
  their attention. Your value is everywhere else.
- Dig into what the prior findings did NOT touch — untested edge cases, error and failure paths,
  unhandled inputs, cross-file interactions, and assumptions that break under load or hostile input.
- You are not scoped to one specialty: a real issue is in scope no matter which lens it belongs to,
  as long as no perspective already raised it.

## What to report

- Only genuinely NEW problems. Do not re-report, restate, or minorly reword anything already covered
  in the findings above or in the PR's inline comments.
- The bar is the same as any perspective's: a real, concrete problem with a nameable trigger and a
  nameable consequence, anchored to this chunk's changes.
- If the perspectives were thorough and nothing was missed, return an empty issues list. An empty
  sweep is a valid, good outcome — padding is not.