review-staged

name	review-staged
description	Generate structured code review for staged files AND all branch commits since main, using Claude Code agents. Provides full PR-equivalent coverage before pushing.
allowed-tools	Bash(git:*), Bash(dotnet:*), Bash(cd:*), Read, Write

Review Staged Files Skill

Generate AI-powered code review comments covering both your currently staged changes and all commits on the branch since it diverged from main. This gives the same full-branch view that Copilot and other PR reviewers see — not just what you're about to commit.

Usage

/review-staged              # Review staged changes + full branch diff against main
/review-staged --verbose    # Show detailed analysis

Examples:

• /review-staged - Review staged changes and all branch commits not yet on main
• /review-staged --verbose - Show detailed analysis with full context

What this skill does

1. Checks for staged files using git diff --staged --name-only
2. Fetches staged changes using git diff --staged
3. Fetches full branch diff using git diff $(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)...HEAD — covers all commits on the branch, not just staged files. This prevents issues in prior commits from going unreviewed.
4. Combines both diffs for review: staged diff = what you're about to add; branch diff = full PR picture that Copilot will see
5. Performs architectural review: Questions design decisions, checks for scope creep, validates use cases
6. Analyzes changes for security, testing, design patterns, and code quality issues
7. Differentiates contexts: CLI code vs GitHub Actions code (different standards)
8. Creates actionable feedback: Specific refactoring suggestions based on file names and patterns
9. Verifies documentation completeness — detects user-visible surface changes (new CLI flags, renamed public types, payload contract changes, etc.) and verifies CHANGELOG.md + relevant README.md/design.md are updated in the same diff. For renames, greps all *.md files for stale references. See the Documentation Completeness section in .claude/agents/pr-code-reviewer.md for detection rules and severity calibration.
10. Runs the test suite and measures per-test timing — flags any test taking > 1 second as a performance regression
11. Generates structured review document saved to a markdown file
12. Shows summary of all issues found organized by severity

Engineering Review Principles

This skill enforces the same principles as the PR review skill:

Architectural Review

• Design Decision Validation: Questions "why" before reviewing "how"
• Scope Creep Detection: Flags expansions beyond Agent365 deployment/management
• Use Case Validation: Requires concrete scenarios for new features
• Overlap Detection: Identifies duplication with existing tools (Azure CLI, Portal)
• YAGNI Enforcement: Questions features without documented need

Architecture & Patterns

• .NET architect patterns: Reviews follow .NET best practices
• Azure CLI alignment: Ensures consistency with az cli patterns and conventions
• Cross-platform compatibility: Validates Windows, Linux, and macOS compatibility (for CLI code)

Design Patterns

• KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid): Prefers simple, straightforward solutions
• DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself): Identifies code duplication
• SOLID principles: Especially Single Responsibility Principle
• YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It): Avoids over-engineering
• One class per file: Enforces clean code organization

Code Quality

• No large files: Flags files over 500 additions
• Function reuse: Encourages reusing functions across commands
• No special characters: Avoids emojis in logs/output (Windows compatibility)
• Self-documenting code: Prefers clear code over excessive comments
• Minimal changes: Makes only necessary changes to solve the problem

Testing Standards

• Framework: xUnit, FluentAssertions, NSubstitute for .NET; pytest/unittest for Python

• Quality over quantity: Focus on critical paths and edge cases

• CLI reliability: CLI code without tests is BLOCKING

• GitHub Actions tests: Strongly recommended (HIGH severity) but not blocking

• Mock external dependencies: Proper mocking patterns

• Test performance — measured by running, not just static analysis: The review ALWAYS runs the full test suite and reports per-test timing. Any test method taking > 1 second is flagged as a performance regression (HIGH severity). The finding must include:

  • The slow test class and method name(s) with their measured time
  • The root cause (cold AzCliHelper token cache, missing WarmAzCliTokenCache call, real subprocess not mocked, etc.)
  • The fix (warmup call pattern, loginHintResolver injection, etc.)
  • Expected time after fix

  If all tests complete in < 1 second each: emit an INFO — PASS finding with the total suite time.

  Do not skip the test run. Static code analysis alone missed the regression in da6f750; only measurement catches it reliably.

Security

• No hardcoded secrets: Use environment variables or Azure Key Vault
• Credential management: Follow az cli patterns for CLI code; use GitHub Secrets for Actions

Documentation Completeness

The review does not assume docs will be updated later — a user-visible surface change without matching doc updates is a finding in its own right. Full detection rules live in .claude/agents/pr-code-reviewer.md (Step 7). Short version:

• Detect: new Option<...>, renamed public class/interface, new/deleted public API, changed payload shape or validation rules, changed observable log messages.
• Require: matching entry in CHANGELOG.md under [Unreleased], updated README.md in the relevant folder, and — for renames — zero stale hits from grep -rn "<OldName>" --include="*.md".
• Severity: missing CHANGELOG for user-visible change = HIGH; stale rename in markdown = HIGH; missing folder README update = MEDIUM.
• Not excuses: "it's preview/opt-in/temporary", "Microsoft Learn will cover it", "you can see it in the diff". The CHANGELOG is the release's source of truth.

Cross-Cutting Contract Checks

Nine checks that static per-file analysis tends to miss — each requires tracing across multiple files or comparing code against docs/descriptions:

• Return-value null semantics (Rule N): When a method documents that null (or a sentinel) carries a special meaning (e.g., "null = verified, safe to persist"), grep every call site and verify the producer returns null in exactly the documented cases. A path that returns non-null when the contract says "verified" silently breaks the caller's persistence gate.
• CHANGELOG vs code numeric consistency (Rule O): After reading CHANGELOG [Unreleased], extract every numeric claim (interval, retry count, timeout). Grep production code for the corresponding literals. Flag any mismatch — the CHANGELOG and the code must agree.
• Swallowed OperationCanceledException (Rule P): For every catch (OperationCanceledException) that returns a value instead of rethrowing, verify the swallow is intentional and documented. In long-running interactive flows (setup, consent polling), a swallowed cancellation means Ctrl+C has no effect.
• Test-only escape hatch declared public (Rule Q): When a property/field named *ForTests* or *TestOverride* is declared public in a production assembly, check the .csproj for InternalsVisibleTo. If present, public is unnecessary and widens the security surface — flag as MEDIUM and suggest internal.
• --help text accuracy (Rule R): When the diff changes how a command surfaces output (new URL handoff, removed PowerShell path, added fallback), read every description string in the same file and its parent command. If the description still names an output form that no longer matches the code, flag as MEDIUM.

Added 2026-05-29 after PR #432 Copilot review surfaced gaps Rules N–R didn't catch. See .codereviews/why-review-staged-missed-copilot-findings-20260529T190832Z.md for the full miss analysis.

• Branch-wide stale-mechanism sweep (Rule S): When the staged diff replaces mechanism X with mechanism Y (e.g., PowerShell fallback → az rest, api://{appId} → bare appId GUID, per-app admin-consent URLs → az ad sp create), enumerate the terms being replaced and grep -rn the entire branch (not just the staged delta) for each term. For every hit outside the staged delta, classify:

  • Stale comment (FIX — code/comment lie about behavior).
  • Stale user-facing log/warning/exception text (FIX — operators read these in production).
  • Stale doc comment / XML doc (FIX — IDE surfaces these to consumers).
  • Intentional historical reference (KEEP — e.g., commit message archaeology, CHANGELOG [Released] entries).

  This is the analog of "rename hygiene" applied to behavior changes. It catches the family of issues where the implementation moves but the surrounding documentation lies. Treat each surviving reference as MEDIUM if user-facing (LogWarning, LogError, exception messages, Warnings collection entries), LOW if internal-only (private comments).

  Six of the nine unique findings in PR #432's Copilot review were of this exact shape — all stale "PowerShell fallback" and "api://{appId}" references on lines outside the staged delta.

• Test-class parallelism safety (Rule T): For every test class in the diff (or anywhere on the branch), check whether the class reads or writes any static property or field whose name matches the pattern *ForTests* or *TestOverride* (these are the conventional escape hatches in this codebase). If yes, the class must carry either:

  • [Collection("Sequential")] attribute, OR
  • [CollectionDefinition(..., DisableParallelization = true)] for a class-specific collection it owns.

  Without one of these, xUnit may run the class in parallel with other classes that also mutate the same static state, producing flaky cross-class races. Severity: MEDIUM. The fix is one line. Two PR #432 findings (BatchPermissionsOrchestratorTests, BatchPermissionsOrchestratorMissingSpTests) were exactly this — both mutated BypassSpProvisioningForTests without [Collection] until Copilot flagged it.

  Implementation: grep -rn "BypassConsentChecksForTests\|BypassSpProvisioningForTests\|OpenUrlOverrideForTests\|<OtherKnownForTestsName>" <test_files>. For each hit, read the enclosing test class and verify the attribute is present.

Full detection rules and real examples are in .claude/agents/pr-code-reviewer.md Step 9, Rules N through V (plus W–DD above).

Context Awareness

The skill differentiates between:

• CLI code (strict requirements): Cross-platform, reliable, must have tests
• GitHub Actions code (GitHub-specific): Linux-only is acceptable, tests strongly recommended

Review Output

Generated review is saved to:

.codereviews/claude-staged-<timestamp>.md

The review includes:

• Summary: Overview of changes and key concerns — includes both staged and branch coverage
• Critical Issues: Blocking issues that must be fixed (labeled [staged] or [branch])
• High Priority: Important issues that should be addressed
• Medium Priority: Issues that improve code quality
• Low Priority: Suggestions for enhancement
• Informational: Best practices and recommendations

Implementation

The skill uses Claude Code directly for semantic code analysis (same as review-pr):

1. Claude Code reads .claude/agents/pr-code-reviewer.md for review process guidelines

2. Claude Code reads .github/copilot-instructions.md for coding standards

3. Claude Code gets staged files: git diff --staged --name-only

4. Claude Code gets staged changes: git diff --staged

5. Claude Code gets the full branch diff against main:

   git diff $(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)...HEAD --name-only   # files changed on branch
   git diff $(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)...HEAD               # full branch diff
   

   This covers ALL commits on the branch since it diverged from origin/main — including prior commits that are no longer in the staged diff. The union of staged files and branch-diff files is the full review surface. This is the same view Copilot and PR reviewers see.

   When there are no staged files, skip step 4 and use only the branch diff. When both exist, label findings clearly — [staged] for changes only in the staged diff, [branch] for changes from prior commits, so the developer knows which issues are still ahead of them vs. already committed.

6. Claude Code reads the complete current content of every file that appears in either diff (staged or branch) to enable full-file semantic analysis. 6a. If any file in the combined diff is a test file (path contains .Tests. or filename ends in Tests.cs), Claude Code MUST also invoke the pr-test-analyzer agent as a subagent to review test coverage quality. Pass the combined diff and list of test files as context. The pr-test-analyzer agent focuses on:

   • NSubstitute predicate precision (predicates on mutable reference types evaluated at assertion time vs. call time)
   • Missing test scenarios for new orchestration code paths (e.g., 409 idempotent path, tri-state verification results)
   • Assertions that track implementation rather than requirements
   • Test method names that accurately describe the contract being verified Include the pr-test-analyzer findings in the review document under a dedicated Test Coverage section. This is critical for catching issues that exist in unchanged sections of modified files, such as:
   • Duplicate hardcoded constants or magic values that already exist elsewhere

Test timing output format (from dotnet test --logger "console;verbosity=normal"):

  Passed SomeTests.Method_Scenario_ExpectedResult [< 1 ms]
  Passed OtherTests.Method_Slow [22 s]

Any line showing [X s] where X ≥ 1 is a slow test. Report all such tests in a dedicated finding.

Key Advantages:

• ✅ No API key required - uses Claude Code's existing authentication
• ✅ Better semantic analysis - Claude Code has full context
• ✅ Catch issues before committing
• ✅ Same rigorous review standards as PR reviews
• ✅ Works offline (no GitHub required)

Workflow

1. Stage your changes: git add <files>

2. Review staged files: /review-staged

   • Analyzes staged changes AND all commits on the branch since main
   • Generates review document with [staged] / [branch] labels
   • Shows summary of issues

3. Address issues: Fix any blocking or high-priority issues

4. Re-review if needed: /review-staged

5. Commit: git commit -m "your message"

When to Use

• Before any commit: Catch issues before they land in the branch history
• Before creating a PR: Get the same full-branch view that Copilot will see — no surprises
• After addressing PR comments: Verify fixes across the entire branch, not just the latest staged diff
• During code cleanup: Validate refactoring changes
• When learning: Get feedback on coding patterns

Requirements

• Git repository (staged changes optional — branch diff is always produced)
• Repository must follow Agent365 DevTools coding standards
• .claude/agents/pr-code-reviewer.md must exist (for review guidelines)
• .github/copilot-instructions.md must exist (for coding standards)

See Also

• README.md - Detailed documentation
• /review-pr - Review pull requests on GitHub