cgw-review

name

cgw-review

description

THE entry point for reviewing a diff or PR in safe-client-gateway, and for verifying your own completed work before committing or opening a PR - load this one first and let it pull in cgw-remarks as its catalog. Covers the repo's two-part review standard - Part 1 maps the diff to the applicable guides via the AGENTS.md routing table and verifies every rule with file:line citations; Part 2 is deviation control (spec match, no scope creep, no new structural deviations, no stale guides - which includes unjustified ratchet-baseline growth, no dead code, pre-commit evidence not assertion, SPDX headers) - plus the required findings format. Triggers on "review this", "look at my diff", "ready to commit", "before PR", "before I open the PR", "definition of done", "is this done", "check my work", "self-review".

CGW Review Checklist

Read docs/agents/reviewing.md and apply both parts. This skill is a loader; the doc is the content.

When a review happens is your process's decision (Superpowers, spec-kit, CI). What to verify in this repo is that doc.

• Part 1 — guideline compliance. Map the diff against every row of the AGENTS.md routing table, not just the first match; name the applicable guides in the output; verify every rule each one lists; cite violations as file:line plus the guide's own heading for that rule. "No guide applies" is a valid, statable outcome — a stretched match produces noise.
• Part 2 — deviation control. Seven independent checks; passing one never excuses failing another. The two that fail most often: pre-commit evidence (yarn format, yarn lint --fix, yarn test output or a CI link — an unproven "tests pass" is a finding), and SPDX headers on every file the change touched, not just created.

Findings are most-severe-first, as a numbered list — one item each, N. **[<rule name>](<link to the rule>)** — [<path>:<line>](<permalink>) — <one-sentence defect>. **Fix:** <the concrete change>. Rule name and location are links, the fix gives the compliant value verbatim, and no report contains a bare #<number> (GitHub autolinks it to an unrelated PR). A clean review states "no findings" explicitly. Full shape: reviewing.md's "Reporting format".

Load cgw-remarks alongside this one — it is the catalog of what this repo's reviewers actually flag, indexed by the shape it takes in a diff.