<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Code-Review on Kartik Sankhla</title>
    <link>https://kartiksankhla.com/tags/code-review/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Code-Review on Kartik Sankhla</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://kartiksankhla.com/tags/code-review/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The check that never checked a file: reading code I didn&#39;t write</title>
      <link>https://kartiksankhla.com/posts/the-check-that-never-checked-a-file/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:30:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid>https://kartiksankhla.com/posts/the-check-that-never-checked-a-file/</guid>
      <description>I generated a Linux persistence triage tool with an LLM, used it in a research project, and only read it properly much later. Its headline check had never examined a single file. What I found, why the tool still produced convincing output, and how to read code you didn&amp;rsquo;t write.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
