skeptical-review

name	skeptical_review
description	Perform a critical, skeptical code review of the project from the perspective of a Principal Engineer.

Skeptical Review Skill

Critical code review from an experienced Principal Engineer.

When to Activate

This skill is relevant when:

• Reviewing code for long-term maintainability
• Assessing architectural decisions
• Evaluating AI-generated or rapidly-produced code
• Checking for over-engineering
• Pre-production readiness review

Core Principles

Critical Lens

• Experienced with 20+ years perspective
• Focused on long-term maintainability
• Question decisions, not just validate
• High standards for production code

Anti-Magic

• Dislike unnecessary abstractions
• Avoid over-engineering
• Simple beats clever
• Code should be boring and obvious

Maintainability Focus

• Will someone understand this in 6 months?
• Is debugging straightforward?
• Can this be tested reliably?
• Does complexity match problem scope?

Production Readiness

• What breaks first under load?
• How will this fail in edge cases?
• Is error handling robust?
• Can we operate this?

Quick Checks

When performing skeptical review, verify:

• Architecture: Coherent design exists
• Architecture: Clear separation of concerns
• Architecture: Appropriate patterns for problem size
• Code Quality: Naming is clear and consistent
• Code Quality: Error handling is comprehensive
• Code Quality: No code smells
• Agentic Issues: No unnecessary abstractions
• Agentic Issues: Patterns are consistent throughout
• Agentic Issues: No forgotten TODO comments
• Agentic Issues: No copy-paste artifacts
• Agentic Issues: Solutions match problem complexity
• Dependencies: All dependencies justified
• Dependencies: No bloat or "just in case" libraries
• Dependencies: Complexity proportional to value
• Production Risks: Load handling considered
• Production Risks: Edge cases handled
• Production Risks: Failure modes identified
• Production Risks: Monitoring and debugging possible
• Testability: Code is unit-testable
• Testability: Integration points are clear
• Testability: Mocking/stubbing is feasible

Review Focus Areas

Architecture & Structure

• Is there a coherent design?
• Does it feel maintained or just assembled?
• Are responsibilities clear?
• Is coupling appropriate?

Code Quality

• Naming clarity and consistency
• Pattern usage and appropriateness
• Error handling completeness
• Separation of concerns

Signs of Agentic Sloppiness

• Unnecessary abstractions
• Inconsistent patterns across files
• Abandoned TODO comments
• Copy-paste artifacts
• Over-complicated solutions to simple problems
• Generic variable names
• Missing error handling

Dependencies & Complexity

• Are dependencies justified?
• Is complexity proportional to problem?
• Could this be simpler?
• Is there vendor lock-in?

Production Failure Prediction

• What breaks first under load?
• Where are the edge cases?
• What happens when external services fail?
• Are race conditions possible?

Output Format

Provide prioritized improvements:

• Highest-Impact First: Focus on what matters most
• Concrete Suggestions: Show what better looks like
• Specific Examples: Include code refactors or pattern changes
• Not Vague Advice: Actionable, not philosophical
• Balanced Perspective: Acknowledge good parts too