code-review-quality

name	code-review-quality
description	Lightweight code-review checklist the agent runs before declaring a patch ready. Catches the obvious classes of issue (dead code, missing error handling, weakened tests) without a full security audit. Adapted from addyosmani's "Review" lifecycle phase.
version	0.1.0
tags	["coding","quality","review"]
metadata	{"hermes":{"created_by":"user"},"zlagent":{"category":"coding","triggers":["review 一下","检查一下代码","代码有没有问题","code review","look for issues"],"capabilities":["read_file","code_execution"],"related_skills":["verification-before-completion","systematic-debugging","documentation-and-decisions"]}}

code-review-quality

Trigger

Activate after writing or editing code and BEFORE running the final verification step. Also activate when the user pastes code and asks for a review, or when the agent wants to gate a skill update.

Principle

Reviews catch what tests cannot see: intent drift, silent regressions, and code that technically works but will break the next editor.

Inputs

• changed_files: the files / hunks to review.
• purpose: one-line statement of what the change should achieve.
• reference: original spec, issue, or plan the change maps to.

Steps

1. Intent check — does each edit map back to a line in purpose? Flag hunks that drift.
2. Scope creep — unrelated renames / formatting mixed into a focused fix? Split if non-trivial.
3. Error handling — new call sites to I/O / HTTP / subprocess have explicit error paths (not just except Exception: pass)?
4. Tests — did any existing assertion weaken (broader tolerance, deleted edge case)? Restore or justify.
5. Invariants — was a class invariant (e.g. "every tool row has a permission tier") maintained?
6. Dead paths — code added that is never reachable from the feature's entry point? Drop.
7. Logging / observability — significant state change logged? On the happy path only, or also on failure?
8. Names — any new symbol that will be misleading in 3 months? Rename if yes, keep if no.
9. Non-goal check — the change should NOT accidentally handle something out of scope (e.g. a skill refactor that changes memory policy).

Output Format

Grade each finding as:

• 🟥 must-fix: blocks merge.
• 🟧 should-fix: merge allowed but tracked.
• 🟩 nit: optional polish.

### code-review-quality findings

- 🟥 _<file>:<line>_  <one-line issue>  — _why it matters_
- 🟧 ...
- 🟩 ...

(零 must-fix 时写 "✅ no blocking issues found")

Verification

• Every finding cites <file>:<line>.
• Must-fix items are addressed before declaring done.
• No finding is vague ("looks weird") — each has a concrete trigger.

Failure Signals

• 0 findings on a 300-line diff: review was rubber-stamped.
• "nit" storm with no must-fix on a patch that later breaks: the gradient is wrong — recalibrate severity thresholds.
• The same class of issue appears repeatedly across reviews: promote it to a guardrail (skill, hook, or lint rule).