review-rules

name	review-rules
description	Reviews current work against task-instruction rules in agents/task_instructions/rules. Use when the user asks for rules-based compliance checks or policy-aligned review feedback.
disable-model-invocation	true
metadata	{"owner":"mark","scope":"global","category":"review"}

Review Rules

Run a structured compliance review against agents/task_instructions/rules/.

When to Use

• User asks for a review based on project rules or standards.
• User wants a checklist-driven pass/fail/warn assessment.
• User asks whether current work follows rule files in the rules directory.

Inputs

• Current workspace context (open files, changed files, task intent).
• Optional user-selected subset of rules.

Path Discovery

Rules live inside an ai_tools tree. Resolve the ai_tools root first, then use agents/task_instructions/rules/ under it.

Resolve ai_tools root in this order:

1. Submodule in workspace
   Check for an ai_tools directory in the workspace root (e.g. ./ai_tools/). If it exists and contains agents/task_instructions/rules/, use it. Paths are always relative to this ai_tools root (e.g. ./ai_tools/agents/task_instructions/rules/ from workspace).
2. Fallback canonical path
   If there is no such submodule, use: /Users/mark/Documents/projects/ai_tools/.

Rules directory: <ai_tools_root>/agents/task_instructions/rules/

If neither location yields a valid agents/task_instructions/rules/ directory, ask the user for the rules directory and stop.

Rule Selection

1. If router.md exists, use it first to choose applicable rules.
2. If user specifies rule files, honor that filter.
3. If no router exists, infer from file names and frontmatter fields:
   • when_to_use
   • scope
   • applies_to.task_types
4. Prefer task-relevant rules over loading everything.

Review Workflow

1. Identify task type from user request and changed files.
2. Read selected rule files fully.
3. Evaluate current work against each selected rule.
4. Record compliance as:
   • pass: clearly satisfied
   • warn: partially satisfied or unclear
   • fail: clearly violated
5. For each warn/fail, provide a concrete remediation step.

Output Format

Return:

1. Rule Set Used
   • Rule file paths
   • Why selected
2. Compliance Matrix
   • Rule -> status (pass/warn/fail) -> rationale
3. Top Violations (by impact)
   • Violation
   • Risk
   • Exact fix recommendation
4. Verification Plan
   • Tests/checks/commands to validate remediations

If all selected rules pass, state that explicitly and still list residual risk or missing verification.

Constraints

• Do not claim compliance without evidence from current work context.
• Do not force unrelated rules when router/task intent indicates a narrower set.
• Keep remediation actionable and minimally invasive.