code-review

name	code-review
description	Language-agnostic code review skill. Reads project conventions from CLAUDE.md and applies parameterized quality checks.
user-invocable	true
context	fork
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
argument-hint	File or directory to review
catalog_description	Language-agnostic code review with project-aware convention checks.

Code Review — Project-Aware Quality Checks

Provides structured code review by reading conventions from your project's CLAUDE.md and cognitive-core.conf. All checks are parameterized.

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS -- file or directory to review

Instructions

Step 1: Load Project Conventions

1. Read CLAUDE.md at the project root for coding standards
2. Source cognitive-core.conf for language and architecture settings:
   • CC_LANGUAGE -- primary language
   • CC_ARCHITECTURE -- architecture pattern (ddd, mvc, clean, etc.)
   • CC_LINT_COMMAND -- configured lint command
3. Check for a code checklist doc referenced in CLAUDE.md

Step 2: Identify File Type and Layer

Determine the architectural layer of the file being reviewed based on its path and the configured CC_ARCHITECTURE pattern. Common layers:

• Domain/Model -- pure business logic, no infrastructure
• Repository/Data -- data access, DB queries
• Service/Use-case -- business orchestration
• Controller/Handler -- HTTP/API interface
• Mapper/DTO -- data transformation

Step 3: Apply Checks

General Checks (all languages)

Check	Severity
File follows project naming conventions	ERROR
Error handling present (not bare catch/rescue/except)	ERROR
No hardcoded secrets or credentials	ERROR
Functions/methods have clear single responsibility	WARN
Magic numbers or strings extracted to constants	WARN
Input validation on public interfaces	WARN

Architecture Checks

Check	Severity
Layer dependencies follow configured pattern	ERROR
No infrastructure code in domain/model layer	ERROR
Controllers delegate to services (thin controllers)	WARN
Data access goes through repository layer	ERROR

Anti-Pattern Checks

Read CLAUDE.md for project-specific anti-patterns and blocked patterns. Flag any matches as ERROR.

Step 4: Output Report

Each finding must include its provenance source for traceability:

CODE REVIEW
===========
File: [path]
Layer: [detected layer]
Language: [from CC_LANGUAGE]

STANDARDS
---------
[check]: [PASS/FAIL] [detail if failed] — Source: [documented|verified|inferred|automated]

ARCHITECTURE
------------
[check]: [PASS/FAIL] [detail if failed] — Source: [documented|verified|inferred|automated]

ANTI-PATTERNS
-------------
[check]: [PASS/FAIL] [detail if failed] — Source: [documented|verified|inferred|automated]

SUMMARY
=======
Category     | Pass | Warn | Fail
-------------|------|------|-----
Standards    |  N   |  N   |  N
Architecture |  N   |  N   |  N
Anti-patterns|  N   |  N   |  N

PROVENANCE
==========
- documented: N findings from CLAUDE.md / language standards
- automated: N findings from lint tool
- inferred: N findings from pattern analysis
- verified: N findings from code inspection

VERDICT: [APPROVED | NEEDS_CHANGES]

Multi-Pass Review Strategy

For reviews involving more than 5 changed files, use a multi-pass approach to prevent attention dilution:

Pass 1: Per-File Local Analysis

Review each file individually for:

• Code style and convention violations
• Bugs and logic errors
• Security issues
• Missing error handling

Output format per file:

File	Line	Severity	Issue	Fix	Source

Pass 2: Cross-File Integration Analysis

After completing all per-file reviews, analyze cross-cutting concerns:

• Data flow consistency across files
• API contract alignment (are callers and implementations in sync?)
• Dependency direction (no circular dependencies, proper layering)
• Naming consistency across related files
• Contradictory patterns (same logic handled differently in different files)

Pass 3: Consolidated Findings

• Deduplicate findings: same pattern in multiple files → single finding with all locations
• Resolve contradictions from Pass 1 (flagging pattern in file A but approving in file B)
• Prioritize: critical → warning → info
• Group by theme, not by file

When to Use

• >5 changed files: Always use multi-pass
• <=5 changed files: Single-pass is sufficient
• Single file: Direct review, no passes needed

Independent Review

Use context: fork to run the review in an isolated context. This prevents the reviewing agent from being influenced by its own prior generation reasoning — a fresh perspective catches issues that self-review misses.

See Also

• /pre-commit -- Quick lint before staging
• /fitness -- Quality fitness scoring
• CLAUDE.md -- Project standards reference