|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +name: code-review |
| 3 | +description: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X". |
| 4 | +--- |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies: |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards? |
| 9 | +- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec? |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing. |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +## Process |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +### 1. Pin the fixed point |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it. |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`. |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents. |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +### 2. Identify the spec source |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +Look for the originating spec, in this order: |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. |
| 30 | +2. A path the user passed as an argument. |
| 31 | +3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature. |
| 32 | +4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available". |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +### 3. Identify the standards sources |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`. |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it: |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell. |
| 41 | +- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces. |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff: |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky. |
| 46 | +- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both. |
| 47 | +- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies. |
| 48 | +- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that. |
| 49 | +- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type. |
| 50 | +- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share. |
| 51 | +- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module. |
| 52 | +- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason. |
| 53 | +- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows. |
| 54 | +- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object. |
| 55 | +- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct. |
| 56 | +- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition. |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include: |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +- The full diff command and commit list. |
| 63 | +- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it. |
| 64 | +- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words." |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include: |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +- The diff command and commit list. |
| 69 | +- The path or fetched contents of the spec. |
| 70 | +- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words." |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report. |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +### 5. Aggregate |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_). |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent. |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +## Why two axes |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +A change can pass one axis and fail the other: |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.** |
| 85 | +- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.** |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other. |
0 commit comments