meaningfy-code-review

name	meaningfy-code-review
description	The Meaningfy pre-PR review — two modes (standalone = five lens subagents fanned out in parallel, one lens each; interactive main-thread), a methodical catalogue-complete review procedure (traverse the whole `cosmic-python` region a lens owns, not a fixed subset), and a fit-and-refactoring investigation, reported by priority. Use to supply the review criteria, modes, and dispatch contract for a Meaningfy change. Trigger on "Meaningfy review checklist", "architecture-conformance review", "review against cosmic-python layers", "pre-PR review criteria", "review modes", "review lenses". For the read-only standalone run, use the external `code-review` command or the `code-reviewer` wrapper.
license	Apache 2.0
metadata	{"category":"ai-coding"}

Meaningfy Code-Review

Overview

The criteria, modes, and dispatch contract for a Meaningfy pre-PR review. This skill defines how to run it (two modes, five lenses fanned out in parallel), the review procedure (methodical and catalogue-complete, not a curated checklist), and how to report. The read-only standalone run is performed by the external code-review command or the code-reviewer agent wrapper (which loads this skill). The review criteria are the cosmic-python catalogue itself — this skill scopes and sequences it, it does not restate or sample it.

Review modes

A review has two modes. The analysis is always isolated from implementation context.

• Standalone (default) — the read-only analysis, fanned out as five lens subagents in parallel (one lens each, see Lenses below), then aggregated into one prioritised report. No dialogue.
• Interactive — entered when the developer starts discussing the PR code or the returned findings. Runs in the main thread over the aggregated findings; the reviewer becomes a thinking partner: explains findings, weighs trade-offs against the cited principles, and co-designs fixes. It stays read-only — accepted fixes are applied later by the implementer, never by the review.

Always-subagent rule. The review analysis MUST be triggered as subagent execution(s), isolated from the implementation/main context — never run inline in the implementation context. Only the aggregation of returned findings and the interactive discussion of them happen in the main thread.

Dispatch contract (standalone)

A standalone review fans out exactly five subagents, one per lens (L1–L5), launched in parallel — each invoking the code-reviewer agent scoped to its single lens. One combined subagent that runs all lenses is a defect, not an optimisation: lenses are isolated so each gets a full, undistracted context budget and the passes overlap in wall-clock.

• The dispatcher is the caller (the main thread, or the external code-review command), because the read-only code-reviewer agent cannot spawn subagents itself. The dispatcher MUST launch all five and then aggregate.
• Each subagent receives only its lens id + the review context (diff, EPIC/specs, Gherkin) — never the implementation session history.
• A single-lens review (e.g. "L3 only") dispatches one subagent; the five-way fan-out is the default for a full review.

Lenses

The analysis is partitioned into a fixed set of five lenses; each lens is one subagent run. A lens is not a curated checklist — it is a region of the cosmic-python standard that the subagent must traverse in full. Together the five regions cover the whole standard (the catalogue and the SKILL contract) with no overlap and no gap; no new ids are minted here.

Lens	Catalogue/SKILL region it owns — review every entry in the region, the examples are not a limit
L1 · Security & safety	the security/safety surface: secrets & credentials, injection (command/SQL/XSS), the OWASP top-10, BP-VALIDATE-AT-BOUNDARY, AP-DUP-VALIDATION, and sensitive-data handling per guardrails.
L2 · Spec correctness & tests	conformance to the EPIC requirements/specs (not the plan) — acceptance criteria, edge/error scenarios, no undocumented divergence — and the whole cosmic-python testing contract (§"No Clean Code Without Tests", BP-COVERAGE-PER-LAYER, FIRST, test-per-layer Workflow 3, Gherkin step defs).
L3 · Architecture conformance	the cosmic-python structural contract in full: the four layers, the dependency law (§1–2), component organisation (PR-COMPONENT-FIRST), observability placement, and every structural anti-pattern (AP-IO-IN-MODELS, AP-LOGIC-IN-EDGES, AP-CROSS-VARIANT-IMPORT, AP-PARALLEL-LAYOUTS, cycles).
L4 · Principles & clean code	the Clean Code + SOLID standard in full (§"Core Principles") and every within-unit best-practice/anti-pattern (BP-DOMAIN-REVEALING-NAMES, BP-CONSTANTS-ENUMS/-HOME, BP-EXCEPTIONS-MODULE, BP-IDIOMATIC-SMALL; AP-FREESTR-ANYLAYER, AP-DICT-AS-MODEL, AP-GENERIC-MODULE-NAMES, AP-EXCEPTIONS-EMBEDDED).
L5 · Fit, elegance & refactoring	the reuse/compactness principles in full (PR-SURVEY-FIRST, PR-REUSE-COMPACT, PR-SSOT-DRY, PR-CONFIG-DECOUPLED) and the duplication/fragmentation anti-patterns (AP-DUP-CONST, AP-MISPLACED-SHARED-INFRA, AP-OVER-FRAGMENTATION, AP-VERBATIM-EXTERNAL), plus the forward-looking fit & refactoring investigation (new + touched code) with gitnexus blast radius.

Lens MECE boundaries (so a finding lands under exactly one lens):

• L3 vs L4 — L3 owns cross-file/structural rules (layer direction, cycles, layout, I/O-in-models, logic-in-edges); L4 owns within-unit code quality (SOLID, naming, free strings, dicts, exceptions, constants). A misplaced import is L3; a magic string is L4.
• L4 vs L5 — L4 flags a local quality defect as-is; L5 owns cross-file reuse/fit and the forward-looking refactoring. "This name is unclear" is L4; "this duplicates the sibling, lift it" is L5.
• L2 vs all — L2 is the only lens that judges against the requirements/specs (correctness + the tests proving it); the others judge the code against principles regardless of requirements.

Review procedure (per lens subagent)

The checklist is the cosmic-python standard, not a fixed list — so coverage is complete by construction and survives catalogue growth. Every lens subagent runs the same five-step procedure, scoped to its region:

1. Scope in. Open this lens's region — the catalogue (cosmic-python:references/principles-and-anti-patterns.md) filtered to the lens, plus the matching cosmic-python SKILL sections (see the Lenses table). The region, not a sample, is your checklist.
2. Gather. Read the diff (new + touched code), the EPIC requirements/specs, and the covering Gherkin.
3. Traverse exhaustively. Walk every principle (PR-*), best-practice (BP-*), and anti-pattern (AP-*) in the region against the changed code; also apply the cosmic-python SKILL review questions (Workflow 2) and the ONE-MINUTE CODE STRUCTURE CHECK where the lens owns them. Do not stop at "found one" — the standard is checked in full.
4. Blast radius. For each modified symbol run gitnexus_impact(… direction: "upstream") and flag HIGH/CRITICAL. (L5 also runs this on each refactor candidate.) If gitnexus is unavailable, warn and proceed.
5. Emit. Report findings citing the catalogue entry id, by priority (Output format below); stay silent on entries that pass. L5 additionally proposes how the new code and the existing code it touches could be refactored toward a crisper, more elegant, effective fit — recommendations only, the review never edits code.

Output format

Each lens subagent reports its own findings; a full standalone review aggregates the five passes into one report. Tag each finding with its lens (L1–L5). Report by priority, each finding with file:line, what, why (name the principle/id), how to fix:

• Critical — breaks functionality, security, or architecture boundaries (must fix before merge).
• Warnings — quality issues, missing non-critical coverage, naming.
• Suggestions — non-blocking improvements (includes L5 refactoring recommendations with blast radius).

Boundary & Related Skills

Owns: the two modes (standalone five-way fan-out / interactive main-thread), the dispatch contract (five lens subagents in parallel, one lens each), the five lens regions + MECE boundaries, the methodical per-lens procedure (traverse the whole region), and the report format. Does NOT own the rules themselves (the cosmic-python catalogue is the checklist — cite, never restate), perform the run (external code-review / code-reviewer wrapper), or fix code (the implementer applies accepted fixes). The fit & refactoring investigation is recommendations-only. Related: cosmic-python, guardrails, meaningfy-git-workflow, external code-review, superpowers:requesting-code-review, superpowers:receiving-code-review.