review

name	review
description	Review code changes against coding principles. Catches magic numbers, bad names, over-engineering, narrating comments, and style mismatches.
user-invocable	true
disable-model-invocation	true
argument-hint	[file-or-directory]

Review code for quality issues. If $ARGUMENTS is provided, review those files. Otherwise, review staged git changes (git diff --cached). If nothing is staged, review all uncommitted changes (git diff).

For each file, check against these criteria and report violations:

naming

• are variable and function names descriptive and self-explanatory?
• do names tell the domain story? flag abbreviations, single letters (except loop indices), or generic names like data, result, temp, handler

magic numbers

• are there hardcoded numeric values that should be expressions?
• 7 * 24 not 168, 60 * 5 not 300, 1024 * 1024 not 1048576
• constants are fine when the value IS the meaning (e.g., port = 443, exit 1)

comments

• are there narrating comments that just describe what the code does? flag them
• comments are only acceptable for: hotfixes, genuinely complex logic, non-obvious intent
• "// increment counter" or "// loop through items" = always wrong

complexity

• are there unnecessary abstractions, wrappers, or indirection?
• are there monolith functions that should be broken up?
• is there over-engineering: error handling for impossible cases, unused parameters, premature generalization?
• could anything be simpler while achieving the same result?

style

• does the new code match the patterns and conventions of the surrounding codebase?
• are there inconsistencies in naming conventions, indentation, or structure?

output format

• group findings by file
• for each issue: quote the line, explain what's wrong, suggest the fix
• if the code is clean, just say so. don't manufacture issues