| name | cfn-dry-review |
| description | MUST BE USED before merging any PR that adds 3+ new functions or 50+ lines. Run after implementation. Reviews code for DRY violations, modularity, resumable pipeline opportunities. Outputs JSON manifest for cfn-vote-implement. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| tags | ["code-review","DRY","modularity","refactoring"] |
| status | production |
CFN DRY Review
Purpose: Systematically review code for DRY violations, modularity improvements, and resumable pipeline opportunities. Produces a structured manifest that feeds into cfn-vote-implement for 3-agent voting.
Inputs
$1: Target scope. One of:
- A file or directory path (e.g.,
src/services/)
--diff (default): review files changed in git diff against the base branch--diff=<ref>: review files changed since a specific ref (e.g., --diff=main)
--category: Filter to specific categories: dry, modularity, resumable, or all (default: all)
Outputs
- JSON manifest at
<project-root>/.cfn-cache/manifests/cfn-dry-review-<timestamp>.json (auto-gitignored, timestamps are nanosecond-precision)
- Human-readable summary to stdout
Manifest Schema
{
"review_id": "dry-review-<timestamp>",
"scope": "git diff main | src/services/",
"generated_at": "ISO-8601",
"suggestions": [
{
"id": "S001",
"category": "dry | modularity | resumable",
"tag": "delete | stdlib | native | yagni | shrink",
"one_liner": "L12-38: stdlib: 27-line validator class. \"@\" check is 1 line; real validation is the confirmation mail.",
"title": "Short description",
"description": "What the problem is and why it matters",
"files": ["path/to/file.ts:42", "path/to/other.ts:17"],
"impact": "high | medium | low",
"effort": "high | medium | low",
"suggested_approach": "Brief description of the fix",
"related_suggestions": ["S003"]
}
]
}
Categories
| Category | What to look for |
|---|
dry | Duplicated logic, copy-pasted blocks, repeated patterns across files, string literals that should be constants |
modularity | God functions/files, mixed concerns, missing abstractions at natural boundaries, tight coupling between modules |
resumable | Pipelines that lose progress on failure, missing checkpoints, non-idempotent operations, batch processes without resume capability |
Suggestion Tags & Grammar
Every suggestion carries one tag (orthogonal to category — it sharpens the fix) and a one-line one_liner in imperative form:
L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>. (use <file>:L<line>: ... for multi-file diffs)
| Tag | Means |
|---|
delete | Dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing. |
stdlib | Hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function. |
native | Dependency or code doing what the platform/DB/framework already does. Name the feature. |
yagni | Abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, a layer with one caller. |
shrink | Same logic, fewer lines. Show the shorter form. |
Imperative, not Socratic:
- ❌ "This EmailValidator class might be more complex than necessary, have you considered whether all these rules are needed?"
- ✅
L12-38: stdlib: 27-line validator class. "@" check is 1 line; real validation is the confirmation mail.
End the stdout summary with one metric: net: -<N> lines possible. (or Lean already. Ship. if nothing to cut).
Scope Lock
This review covers minimalism ONLY: DRY, modularity, resumable, over-engineering. Correctness bugs, security holes, and performance are explicitly OUT of scope — route those to /code-review. Do not mix axes; the scope lock is what keeps findings terse and the manifest focused.
Usage
/cfn-dry-review
/cfn-dry-review src/services/
/cfn-dry-review --category=dry
/cfn-dry-review --diff=feature-branch
Integration
- Outputs feed directly into
/cfn-vote-implement for 3-agent voting
- Can be used standalone for review-only workflows
- Manifest is resumable: re-running
/cfn-vote-implement on the same manifest skips already-processed suggestions
Related
/cfn-vote-implement - Phase 2: voting and implementation
