| name | xp-quality-review |
| description | Independent review of the current diff. Spawns an xp-code-reviewer subagent that self-finds correctness (per-increment) or validates & fixes /code-review's findings (close path, MODE=consume-findings), plus drift, debt, and reuse/quality/efficiency + XP-lens review. Resolves plan concerns inline. |
| effort | high |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Edit","Write","Grep","Glob","Agent","Skill","Bash(*/skills/*/scripts/*)","Bash(*/append.sh *)","Bash(*/init.sh)","Bash(python3 -m unittest *)"] |
!CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}" ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/preload.sh
Quality Review
Sequential discipline. The harness batches independent tool calls in
parallel; this skill is step-gated. Run Step 1 โ 2 โ 3 โ 4 โ 5 strictly, one
step per turn โ make the call, observe, then decide the next. Don't batch a
step with the one that depends on it (e.g. acting on the xp-code-reviewer's
findings before it returns); never spawn that reviewer subagent more than once.
Independent read-only calls may still batch.
Independent review of the current diff. The preload's MODE line selects Step 1's
correctness handling: MODE=self-find (per-increment, /code-review did NOT
run) โ the xp-code-reviewer self-finds correctness itself; MODE=consume-findings
(close path, /code-review ran first) โ Step 1 reads its JSON findings array and the
reviewer validates & fixes them. Both modes also cover quality/drift/debt.
Step 1: Gather Reviewer Inputs
Open concerns and debts the reviewer should see
The reviewer cannot infer which existing concerns or debts the diff might close; pass the relevant ones in the prompt so it can verify whether the staged changes address them and whether a Resolves-Event: trailer is warranted on the next commit. Pull candidates from the preload's ## Debt for Changed Files section (open, unresolved debts/concerns whose files overlap the diff, via commits.open_issues_matching_commit) and from any plan-review concerns the preload lists. If the preload surfaced no overlapping events, state that explicitly โ empty context reads as missing analysis, not absence.
Gather Code-Review Findings (consume-findings mode only)
When MODE=consume-findings: read the JSON findings array /code-review produced. /code-review runs via the Workflow tool, so its verified findings arrive in the task-notification result (a findings array; each entry: file, line, summary, failure_scenario) โ read them from there, not from a Skill result. All are unaddressed; pass them to the subagent to validate and fix. If the array is empty, say so in the prompt.
Format as a numbered list for the prompt โ file, line, the finding summary, and its failure_scenario:
1. file.py:123 โ "summary of the bug" (failure: <failure_scenario>)
2. other.py:45 โ "summary of the bug" (failure: <failure_scenario>)
Step 2: Build Reviewer Prompt and Spawn (single unconditional spawn)
Build the xp-code-reviewer prompt now and spawn the reviewer unconditionally. In self-find mode pass ## Code-Review Findings\nNone โ self-find correctness so the reviewer takes its self-find branch โ it self-triages the diff's risk from the change itself and its injected Constraints pillar (Section 1c) and elevates the risky angles on its own, so no external risk hint is needed. In consume-findings mode pass the numbered findings list from Step 1. When a close cycle id is in scope for this invocation (a close skill supplied one), add a ## Close Cycle ID\n<value> section to the prompt; absent a close cycle id (per-commit review), omit the section entirely.
Single-spawn invariant. Exactly ONE xp-code-reviewer spawn per cycle. Do NOT fan-out into multiple parallel spawns. Sprint-103's 3-spawn fan-out had irreducible coordination races (filesystem writes, SMM appends, dedupe-key fragility); a single spawn avoids all of them.
Agent(
subagent_type: "xp-agents:xp-code-reviewer",
prompt: "## Diff\n<diff>\n\n## Code-Review Findings\n<numbered list, or 'None โ self-find correctness'>\n\n## Existing Debt\n<debt>\n\n## SMM Directory\nSMM_DIR=<path>\n\nReview all four areas: correctness, drift, debt, reuse/quality/efficiency + XP values."
)
Wait for the subagent to complete. Its findings and any recorded events will be returned as a tool result.
Step 3: Resolve Plan Review Concerns
The preload lists open concerns from the plan reviewer. For each concern:
- If code changes address it โ resolve it:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/smm/append.sh --smm-dir <SMM_DIR> \
--type "status" --agent "xp-quality-review" \
--content "Resolved: [what was addressed]" \
--working-on '[]' --metadata '{"resolves": ["<concern-event-id>"]}'
- If the concern is still open โ leave it.
If no open plan concerns are listed in the preload, skip this step.
Step 4: Act on Subagent Findings
Review the xp-code-reviewer's summary. For each finding:
- Fix directly (preferred โ courage). Edit files to address the issue. Run tests afterward.
- Fix overlapping open concerns now (COURAGE-FIX). If an open plan-review or close-reviewer concern's
files overlap the diff you're already touching, fix it now while the file is open โ file overlap is in scope, no re-litigation. Don't defer to "MAYBE ADDRESSED" triage at close time. Resolve via the Resolves-Event: trailer in the same commit.
- Already recorded by subagent via append.sh โ no further action needed.
- Record as debt if fix is too large for this review:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/smm/append.sh --smm-dir <SMM_DIR> \
--type "debt" --agent "xp-quality-review" \
--content "What needs fixing and why" --files '["path/to/file.py"]'
Step 5: Report Back
Briefly summarize what was fixed, what was deferred as debt, and what was already clean. Do NOT append a status event โ the PostToolUse hook records the lifecycle event.
Guidelines
- Independence is the point. The xp-code-reviewer subagent has fresh context โ it didn't write the code. Trust its judgment.
- Courage over comfort. If the subagent flags a finding as valid, default to applying the fix.
- Run tests after any changes to verify nothing breaks.
- If the subagent reports all code is clean, record the summary and move on.
