self-review

name	self-review
description	Self-review before completing tasks. Multi-perspective verification using Gemini CLI + Claude subagent.

Self Review Skill

Execute this self-review procedure before marking tasks as completed (TodoWrite completed).

Trigger Conditions

Apply this skill when:

• Just before marking a task as completed with TodoWrite
• When explicitly invoked by the user with /self-review command

Review Procedure

Phase 1: Collect Change Diffs

# List of changed files
git diff --name-only HEAD

# Get change contents
git diff HEAD

Phase 2: Gemini CLI Review (External Model Perspective)

Execute Gemini CLI review on changed Dart files:

git diff HEAD -- "*.dart" | gemini -p "
Please review the following code changes.

## Review Points (Check All)

### 1. Code Quality
- Readability (is it easy to understand?)
- Naming (appropriate variable/function names)
- Structure (proper separation of concerns)

### 2. Bugs & Errors
- Null safety
- Edge cases
- Exception handling
- Memory leaks

### 3. Design Patterns
- Architecture consistency
- Appropriate dependencies
- Duplicate code

## Output Format
- Critical issues: [file:line] [description and fix suggestion]
- Minor issues: [file:line] [description]
- No issues: 'LGTM'
"

Phase 3: Claude Subagent Review (Different Context Perspective)

Launch a review agent in a separate context using Task tool:

subagent_type: general-purpose

Prompt example:
---
Please review the following code changes.

## Changed Files
[Result of git diff --name-only HEAD]

## Change Contents
[Result of git diff HEAD]

## Review Points (Check All)

### Common Points
1. Code quality (readability, naming, structure)
2. Bugs & errors (null safety, edge cases, exception handling, memory leaks)
3. Design patterns (architecture consistency, dependencies, duplicate code)

### Project-Specific Points
4. Naming conventions (files: snake_case, classes: PascalCase, variables/functions: camelCase)
5. Architecture patterns (features/*/data/models/, repositories/, providers/, ui/)
6. Flutter-specific (Semantics support, Riverpod AsyncNotifier usage)

## Output Format
- Critical issues: [file:line] [description and fix suggestion]
- Minor issues: [file:line] [description]
- No issues: 'LGTM'
---

Phase 4: Result Integration & Comparison

Integrate both review results and make judgment:

Judgment	Condition	Action
PASS	Both LGTM	Task can be completed
MINOR	Only minor issues	Show warning, then task can be completed
FAIL	Critical issues found	Add fix tasks, re-review required

Phase 5: Feedback Loop

If FAIL judgment:

1. Fix the problem areas
2. Re-execute Phase 1-4
3. Repeat until PASS

Review Point Checklist

Code Quality

• Functions follow single responsibility principle
• Appropriate error handling exists
• Comments are minimal and clear
• Magic numbers are defined as constants

Bugs & Errors

• Safe handling of nullable types
• Error handling for async operations
• Proper resource cleanup (dispose)
• Consideration of boundary values and edge cases

Design Patterns

• Follows project structure
• Utilizes existing utilities/helpers
• No duplicate code
• Design is testable

Project-Specific

• File names: snake_case
• Class names: PascalCase
• Variables/functions: camelCase
• Semantics support (for E2E testing)
• Appropriate use of Riverpod AsyncNotifier

Output Template

## Self Review Result

### Gemini Review (External Model)
[Output from Gemini]

### Claude Subagent Review (Different Context)
[Output from subagent]

### Comparison Analysis
- Common issues: [Issues identified by both]
- Gemini-only issues: [Issues found only by Gemini]
- Subagent-only issues: [Issues found only by subagent]

### Judgment: [PASS/MINOR/FAIL]

#### Issues (if applicable)
- [ ] [file:line] [description]

#### Next Action
- [Complete task / Fix required]

Adjustment by Change Size

If running full dual review for all tasks takes too long:

# Determine by number of changed lines
git diff --stat HEAD | tail -1

Change Size	Lines (approx)	Review Method
Small	~30 lines	Gemini CLI only (lightweight)
Medium	31-100 lines	Dual review
Large	100+ lines	Dual review + detailed analysis