code-review

name	code-review
description	Performs an architectural and quality code review on a specified file or set of files. Checks for coding standard compliance, architectural pattern adherence, SOLID principles, testability, and performance concerns.

Code Review

This is the Codex-adapted version of the original workflow. Use only .codex/ runtime assets when following it.

Arguments: [path-to-file-or-directory]

When this skill is invoked:

1. Read the target file(s) in full.

2. Read the .codex/docs/project-instructions.md for project coding standards.

3. Identify the system category (engine, gameplay, AI, networking, UI, tools) and apply category-specific standards.

4. Evaluate against coding standards:

   • Public methods and classes have doc comments
   • Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
   • No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
   • Dependencies are injected (no static singletons for game state)
   • Configuration values loaded from data files
   • Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)

5. Check architectural compliance:

   • Correct dependency direction (engine <- gameplay, not reverse)
   • No circular dependencies between modules
   • Proper layer separation (UI does not own game state)
   • Events/signals used for cross-system communication
   • Consistent with established patterns in the codebase

6. Check SOLID compliance:

   • Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change
   • Open/Closed: Extendable without modification
   • Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
   • Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces
   • Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions

7. Check for common game development issues:

   • Frame-rate independence (delta time usage)
   • No allocations in hot paths (update loops)
   • Proper null/empty state handling
   • Thread safety where required
   • Resource cleanup (no leaks)

8. Output the review in this format:

## Code Review: [File/System Name]

### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
[List failures with line references]

### Architecture: [CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
[List specific architectural concerns]

### SOLID: [COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND]
[List specific violations]

### Game-Specific Concerns
[List game development specific issues]

### Positive Observations
[What is done well -- always include this section]

### Required Changes
[Must-fix items before approval]

### Suggestions
[Nice-to-have improvements]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]