code-review

name

code-review

description

Two-axis review of the diff since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, merge-base) — Standards (house coding standards + a Fowler code-smell baseline) and Spec (does the diff faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD?). Runs the two axes as parallel sub-agents so neither pollutes the other, then reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch / PR / work-in-progress, asks to "review since X", or when an orchestrator (e.g. /ship) needs a pre-merge gate.

Code Review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD (or a named branch) and a fixed point the user supplies:

• Standards — does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards, plus a fixed Fowler smell baseline?
• Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD?

All artifacts follow ARTIFACT-FORMAT.md. Report to the user in Chinese (per ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md §1); keep the Fowler smell names in English (they're terms).

Why two axes. A change can pass one and fail the other: code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing (Standards pass, Spec fail); code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks conventions (Spec pass, Standards fail). Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other — so never merge or rerank across axes.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user (or the calling skill) supplied is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If none was given, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once. Default to three-dot (compares against the merge-base):

git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD            # or  git diff HEAD...<branch>  when reviewing a branch
git log  <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline   # the commit list

Before spawning anything, confirm the ref resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff must fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. A path the user (or caller) passed as an argument — an issue file or PRD.
2. The issue referenced by the branch / feature slug: .scratch/<feat>/issues/NN-*.md (its ## AC block is the spec). For a redo/fix issue, also read the parent named by refines:.
3. The feature PRD: .scratch/<feat>/PRD.md.
4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent skips and reports "无 spec 可比对".

Issue-tracker layout has been configured — run /hys-setup if .scratch/ doesn't exist yet.

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo documenting how code should be written: CODING_STANDARDS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, the domain language in CONTEXT.md, and the decisions in docs/adr/ (a diff that violates an accepted ADR is a Standards finding).

On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• The repo overrides. A documented repo standard (or ADR) always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
• Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.

Each smell reads what it is → how to fix; match it against the diff:

• Mysterious Name — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
• Duplicated Code — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
• Feature Envy — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
• Data Clumps — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
• Primitive Obsession — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type (use the CONTEXT.md name).
• Repeated Switches — the same switch/if-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
• Shotgun Surgery — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
• Divergent Change — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
• Speculative Generality — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
• Message Chains — long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
• Middle Man — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
• Refused Bequest — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Dispatch two sub-agents in one turn — one per axis — so their contexts stay separate. Each is read-only — it inspects the diff and reports.

Standards sub-agent — give it:

• The full diff command and commit list.
• The standards-source files found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
• The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard or an accepted ADR: cite the standard (file + rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it (English) and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard/ADR breaches can be hard, baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Spec sub-agent — give it:

• The diff command and commit list.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec (issue ## AC block and/or PRD).
• The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial (under-build); (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for — scope creep (over-build); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note it in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned; keep the axes separate (see Why two axes). End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any).

Called by an orchestrator

/ship's pre-merge gate invokes this skill against each built branch (git diff HEAD...<branch>, the issue as spec). In that mode the verdict gates the merge: any blocking Standards violation or Spec miss means the branch is not merged and the issue is reported failed with the concrete findings. The orchestrator — never this skill — decides merge vs. abort.