| name | code-review-and-quality |
| description | Conducts multi-axis code review (MeKnow-adapted, polyglot). Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human across Python/Go/TypeScript. Use when you need to assess code quality across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before it enters main. Complements the built-in `/code-review` and `/security-review` slash commands and the `/solo:address-review` PR-comment loop. |
| tags | [] |
Code Review and Quality
Overview
Multi-dimensional code review with quality gates. Every change gets reviewed before merge — no exceptions. Review covers five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
This skill is the methodology behind, and complements, the repo's automation:
- the built-in
/code-review slash command (diff-focused correctness + cleanup pass),
- the built-in
/security-review slash command (security-focused pass — see the security-and-hardening sibling skill for the controls),
- the
/solo:address-review loop, which applies PR-comment feedback against an OpenSpec change.
Use those for the mechanics; use this skill for the standard you hold the change to.
The approval standard: Approve a change when it definitely improves overall code health, even if it isn't perfect. Perfect code doesn't exist — the goal is continuous improvement. Don't block a change because it isn't exactly how you would have written it. If it improves the codebase, follows the conventions of the touched language (idiomatic Python / Go / TypeScript), and upholds the hard invariants in .solo/spec/project.md, approve it.
When to Use
- Before merging any PR or change (including before
/solo:implement opens a PR)
- After completing a feature implementation via
/solo:implement
- When another agent or model produced code you need to evaluate
- When refactoring existing packages
- After any bug fix (review both the fix and the regression test — see
debugging-and-error-recovery)
The Five-Axis Review
Every review evaluates code across these dimensions:
1. Correctness
Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Does it match the OpenSpec delta / task requirements?
- Are edge cases handled (None/nil, empty list/dict, zero values, boundary values)?
- Are error paths handled? Exceptions caught at the right boundary (Python); every returned
error checked and wrapped with %w where inspected (Go); rejected promises handled (TS). Errors are not swallowed.
- Does it pass the resolver-selected gates? Did the DB-dependent pytest actually run against pgvector (
DATABASE_URL/TEST_DATABASE_URL set), or silently skip?
- Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or state inconsistencies? For Go concurrency, check with
go test -race. For async Python, check the ASYNC-lint findings and that awaited work isn't dropped.
- Does it preserve the hard invariants —
temperature == 0 on synthesize/cite/filter, refuse_if: no_citations in the filter stage, ACL enforced server-side in retrieve_kb?
2. Readability & Simplicity
Can another engineer (or agent) understand this code without the author explaining it?
- Are names idiomatic for the language and consistent with the package? (No
temp, data, result without context; clear module/function names; no stutter.)
- Is the control flow straightforward? Prefer early returns and guard clauses over deep nesting.
- Is the code organized logically (related code grouped, clear package boundaries —
packages/* vs apps/* vs apps/portal)?
- Are there "clever" tricks (reflection, metaprogramming, unsafe, channel gymnastics) that should be simplified?
- Could this be done in fewer lines? (1000 lines where 100 suffice is a failure.)
- Are abstractions earning their complexity? Don't add a generic helper or a new lobe/path until a second/third caller needs it. The BotPolicy interpreter is the one deliberate generalization — a new bot behavior is a config row + prompt file, not a new interpreter branch; match that level, don't out-abstract it.
- Would a doc comment clarify non-obvious intent? (But don't comment obvious code.)
- Any dead code: unused exports, no-op assignments, backwards-compat shims,
# removed / // removed comments?
3. Architecture
Does the change fit the system's design?
- Does it follow existing patterns or introduce a new one? If new, is it justified?
- Does it respect the package boundaries (
packages/{rag-core,agent-core,ingest-core,llm-transport,...}, apps/*, apps/portal)? Does the dependency flow point the right way?
- Is there code duplication that should be shared?
- Is a new bot/capability expressed as a new
BotVersion/BotPolicy row + prompt file (not code), and a new engine capability as a lobe/path registry row (not an interpreter branch)? If a "new bot" needs an interpreter change, the abstraction is wrong.
- Does it honor the framework boundaries: no LangChain/LangGraph/Haystack/LlamaIndex (
anthropic-sdk-python directly), MCP as the internal tool boundary (kb.* contract, embedded transport, ACP/A2A out of the retrieval loop), the compression invariant (only memo_schema_ref-shaped objects cross stage boundaries)?
- Is OpenAPI the API contract — backend generates the spec, portal types are generated, never hand-written?
- Does the change belong to an OpenSpec change? Non-trivial behavior changes should have a spec delta, not just code.
4. Security
For detailed security guidance, see the security-and-hardening sibling skill and the built-in /security-review command. In review specifically, check:
- Is external input (chat messages, ingested KB documents, connector payloads, portal requests) validated at the boundary before use, and treated as untrusted data, not instructions?
- Is ACL enforced server-side inside
retrieve_kb, with caller identity inherited from the request and never trusted from the model?
- Is the system multi-tenant by default — does every query, cache key, and log line carry
tenant_id, with no cross-tenant joins and a cache key that includes the ACL-cohort hash?
- Are SQL queries parameterized (
$1/%s/bound params), never string-concatenated?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control? No API keys, tokens, or unsealed credentials in log lines or error strings.
- Are versions append-only — is the change adding a new child with a parent pointer rather than mutating a prior
BotVersion/KBVersion/golden set/trace in place?
- Does the filter stage refuse rather than emit ungrounded claims (
refuse_if: no_citations), and is temperature == 0 held on synthesize/cite/filter so output is deterministic and not coaxable?
- Does the compression invariant hold — raw KB chunks never leave a sub-agent across a stage boundary?
5. Performance
Does the change introduce performance problems?
- Any N+1 query patterns against pgvector/Postgres? Prefer a single query /
IN over a loop of queries. Is the vector search bounded (top-k) and the ACL filter pushed into the query?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching (e.g. ingesting a whole KB into memory)?
- Any blocking call inside an async path or request handler that should have a timeout/context? Latency matters — the product gate is p95 <= 12s.
- Any task/worker leaks — an asyncio task or goroutine started without a way to stop it, a channel never drained?
- Any large allocation or redundant embedding computation in a hot path?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Change Sizing
Small, focused changes are easier to review, faster to merge, and safer to deploy. Target these sizes:
~100 lines changed → Good. Reviewable in one sitting.
~300 lines changed → Acceptable if it's a single logical change.
~1000 lines changed → Too large. Split it.
A single OpenSpec change should ideally map to a reviewable diff. If a change's tasks add up to a 1000-line diff, the change itself was probably too big — split the proposal.
What counts as "one change": A single self-contained modification that addresses one thing, includes related tests in the touched package's language, and keeps the resolver-selected gates green after submission. One part of a feature — not the whole feature.
Splitting strategies when a change is too large:
| Strategy | How | When |
|---|
| Stack | Submit a small change, start the next based on it | Sequential dependencies |
| By package | Separate changes for packages/rag-core vs apps/backend vs apps/portal etc. | Cross-cutting concerns |
| Horizontal | Add the shared contract/migration first, then consumers | Layered work (e.g. new kb.* MCP tool, OpenAPI schema) |
| Vertical | Break into smaller full-pipeline slices | Feature work (ingest → retrieve_kb → synthesize/cite/filter → API) |
When large changes are acceptable: Complete file deletions and automated refactoring (e.g. ruff format / gofmt / rename) where the reviewer only needs to verify intent, not every line. A new Alembic migration plus its generated touchpoints, or regenerated OpenAPI/portal types, can be large but is still one logical change.
Separate refactoring from feature work. A change that refactors an existing package and adds new behavior is two changes — submit them separately. Small cleanups (a rename, a format pass) can be included at reviewer discretion.
Change Descriptions
Every change needs a description that stands alone in version-control history.
First line: Short, imperative, standalone. "Enforce tenant ACL server-side in retrieve_kb" not "ACL stuff." Informative enough that someone searching history understands it without the diff.
Body: What is changing and why. Include context, decisions, and reasoning not visible in the code. Link to the OpenSpec change name, the design doc (docs/design/NNNN-<slug>.md), benchmark results, or the relevant capability spec. Acknowledge approach shortcomings when they exist.
Anti-patterns: "Fix bug," "Fix build," "Add patch," "Moving code from A to B," "Phase 1," "Add convenience functions."
End commit messages with the required co-author trailer
(Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>).
Review Process
Step 1: Understand the Context
Before looking at code, understand the intent:
- What is this change trying to accomplish?
- Which OpenSpec change / spec delta does it implement?
- What is the expected behavior change?
Step 2: Review the Tests First
Tests reveal intent and coverage:
- Do tests exist, in the touched package's language (tests/test_<feature>.py,
<feature>_test.go, apps/portal/src/**/<feature>.test.ts(x))?
- Do they test behavior (not implementation details)?
- Are edge cases covered (None/nil, empty, error paths, boundary)?
- Do tests have descriptive names (test_filter_refuses_when_no_citations)?
- Do they seed at least two tenants and assert results never cross tenant_id?
- Are LLM calls stubbed deterministically (temperature == 0), not hitting a live model?
- Do behavioral guarantees reference the right benchmarks/gates/ script?
- Do DB-dependent pytest run against pgvector, and skip cleanly without a DB?
Step 3: Review the Implementation
Walk through the code with the five axes in mind:
For each file changed:
1. Correctness: Does this code do what the test says it should? Errors handled? Invariants held?
2. Readability: Idiomatic for its language? Can I understand it without help?
3. Architecture: Does it fit the package boundaries, the BotPolicy/lobe model, MCP boundary, no-LangChain rule?
4. Security: untrusted-input handling, server-side ACL, tenant_id everywhere, parameterized queries, no secrets in logs, append-only versions, refuse_if no_citations?
5. Performance: N+1, unbounded fetch/embedding, task/goroutine leaks, missing timeouts, p95 budget?
Step 4: Categorize Findings
Label every comment with its severity so the author knows what's required vs optional:
| Prefix | Meaning | Author Action |
|---|
| (no prefix) | Required change | Must address before merge |
| Critical: | Blocks merge | Cross-tenant leak, ACL trusted from the model, ungrounded answer (no refuse_if), non-zero temperature on synthesize/cite/filter, secret in logs, in-place mutation of an append-only version |
| Nit: | Minor, optional | Author may ignore — format-clean style, naming preference |
| Optional: / Consider: | Suggestion | Worth considering, not required |
| FYI | Informational only | No action needed — context for the future |
This prevents authors from treating all feedback as mandatory.
Step 5: Verify the Verification
Check the author's verification story:
- Did the resolver-selected gates pass for the touched packages
(uv ruff/format/pyright/pytest, go build/vet/test -race, pnpm typecheck/lint/test)?
- Did bash benchmarks/ci-free-gates.sh run for py/bench changes?
- Did solo-spec validate "<change>" --strict pass?
- Did the DB-dependent pytest actually run against pgvector, or skip?
- For behavioral guarantees, did the LLM-tier judge gates meet the thresholds
(faithfulness >= 0.85, citation accuracy >= 0.95, p95 latency <= 12s,
cross-tenant isolation pass, ACL escape pass)?
Multi-Model / Multi-Agent Review Pattern
Use different agents for different review perspectives:
Agent A writes the code (e.g. via /solo:implement)
│
▼
Agent B reviews for correctness and architecture (this skill / /code-review)
│
▼
Agent A addresses the feedback (/solo:address-review)
│
▼
Human makes the final call
Different models have different blind spots. AI-generated code often runs and looks plausible while ignoring an unhandled error, a dropped await, a leaked task, or a broken invariant — review it harder, not softer.
Example prompt for a review agent:
Review this change for correctness, security, and our project.md invariants.
The OpenSpec change is [X]. The change should [Y]. Confirm ACL is enforced
server-side in retrieve_kb (never trusted from the model), every query/cache
key/log line carries tenant_id, temperature == 0 on synthesize/cite/filter,
the filter stage has refuse_if no_citations, versions stay append-only, no
LangChain creeps in, and raw KB chunks don't cross a stage boundary. Flag
issues as Critical / Important / Suggestion.
Dead Code Hygiene
After any refactoring or implementation change, check for orphaned code:
- Identify code now unreachable or unused (
ruff F401/F811 + pyright for Python; go vet / staticcheck for Go; eslint / tsc for TS; or grep for the symbol).
- List it explicitly.
- Ask before deleting: "Should I remove these now-unused elements: [list]?"
Don't leave dead code lying around — it confuses future readers and agents. But don't silently delete things you're unsure about.
DEAD CODE IDENTIFIED:
- format_legacy_answer() in packages/rag-core/synth.py — replaced by format_answer()
- the pre-MCP direct-KB call path in packages/agent-core — superseded by the kb.* tool
- unused LEGACY_EMBED_MODEL constant in packages/ingest-core — no remaining references
→ Safe to remove these?
Review Speed
Slow reviews block the whole flow. The cost of context-switching to review is less than the waiting cost imposed on others.
- Respond within one business day — maximum, not target.
- Ideal cadence: respond shortly after a review request arrives, unless deep in focused coding.
- Prioritize fast individual responses over quick final approval. Quick feedback reduces frustration even across multiple rounds.
- Large changes: ask the author to split them rather than reviewing one massive changeset.
Handling Disagreements
When resolving review disputes, apply this hierarchy:
- Technical facts and data override opinions and preferences.
- Language style (
ruff/ruff format + PEP 8 for Python, gofmt/Effective Go for Go, eslint/prettier for TS) is the authority on style matters.
- The
.solo/spec/project.md hard invariants are non-negotiable — a change that breaks one doesn't merge regardless of preference.
- Codebase consistency is acceptable if it doesn't degrade overall health.
Don't accept "I'll clean it up later." Deferred cleanup rarely happens. Require cleanup before submission unless it's a genuine emergency; otherwise file a tracking ticket with self-assignment.
Honesty in Review
When reviewing code — yours, another agent's, or a human's:
- Don't rubber-stamp. "LGTM" without evidence of review helps no one.
- Don't soften real issues. Calling a cross-tenant leak "a minor concern" is dishonest.
- Quantify problems when possible. "This adds one DB round-trip per retrieved chunk, pushing p95 past the 12s gate" beats "this could be slow."
- Push back on approaches with clear problems. Sycophancy is a failure mode in reviews. Say it directly and propose an alternative.
- Accept override gracefully. If the author has full context and disagrees, defer. Comment on code, not people.
Dependency Discipline
Part of code review is dependency review.
Before adding any dependency (PyPI / Go module / npm):
- Does the existing stack solve this? (
anthropic-sdk-python, sentence-transformers, the standard library, pgvector, the existing packages/* — often it does.)
- Is it actively maintained? (Last commit, open issues.)
- Does it have known vulnerabilities? (
pip-audit / govulncheck ./... / pnpm audit.)
- What's the license? (Must be compatible — this repo vendors MIT skills, for example.)
- Will the toolchain stay clean (
uv lock, go mod tidy, pnpm install --frozen-lockfile)?
Rule: Prefer the standard library and existing packages/* utilities over new dependencies. Every dependency is a liability and attack surface. Hard stop: no LangChain/LangGraph/Haystack/LlamaIndex or other agent framework — the runtime is built on anthropic-sdk-python directly.
The Review Checklist
## Review: [PR/Change title]
### Context
- [ ] I understand what this change does and which OpenSpec change it implements
### Correctness
- [ ] Change matches the spec delta / task requirements
- [ ] Edge cases handled (None/nil, empty, zero values, boundaries)
- [ ] Errors handled at the right boundary; not swallowed
- [ ] Invariants preserved (temperature == 0; refuse_if no_citations; server-side ACL)
- [ ] Tests cover the change; -race run for Go concurrency
### Readability
- [ ] Names idiomatic and consistent; format-clean (ruff/gofmt/prettier)
- [ ] Early-return control flow, not deep nesting
- [ ] No unnecessary complexity or premature abstraction
### Architecture
- [ ] Respects package boundaries (packages/* vs apps/* vs apps/portal) and dependency direction
- [ ] New bot/capability = BotVersion/BotPolicy row + prompt file (not code); new engine cap = lobe registry row
- [ ] MCP boundary honored (kb.* contract, embedded transport); no LangChain; compression invariant holds
- [ ] OpenAPI is the contract (portal types generated, not hand-written)
### Security
- [ ] External input (chat/KB docs/connectors/portal) validated and treated as untrusted
- [ ] ACL enforced server-side in retrieve_kb; caller identity never trusted from the model
- [ ] tenant_id on every query, cache key, and log line; no cross-tenant joins
- [ ] SQL parameterized; no string concatenation
- [ ] No secrets/keys/tokens in logs or version control
- [ ] Versions append-only (new child + parent pointer, no in-place mutation)
### Performance
- [ ] No N+1 against pgvector; vector search bounded (top-k), ACL pushed into the query
- [ ] No unbounded fetch/embedding; no task/goroutine leaks
- [ ] Blocking calls have timeout/context; within the p95 <= 12s budget
- [ ] Pagination on list endpoints
### Verification
- [ ] Resolver-selected gates pass (uv/go/pnpm as applicable + ci-free-gates.sh + solo-spec validate --strict)
- [ ] DB-dependent pytest actually ran against pgvector (DATABASE_URL set), not skipped
- [ ] Behavioral guarantees meet thresholds (faithfulness >= 0.85, citation >= 0.95, p95 <= 12s, tenant isolation, ACL escape)
### Verdict
- [ ] **Approve** — Ready to merge
- [ ] **Request changes** — Issues must be addressed
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|
| "It works, that's good enough" | Working code that's unreadable, insecure, or breaks an invariant creates debt that compounds. |
| "I wrote it, so I know it's correct" | Authors are blind to their own assumptions. Every change benefits from another set of eyes. |
| "We'll clean it up later" | Later never comes. The review is the quality gate — require cleanup before merge. |
| "AI-generated code is probably fine" | AI code needs more scrutiny, not less. It's confident and plausible, even when it drops an await, leaks a tenant, or skips refuse_if. |
| "The tests pass, so it's good" | Tests are necessary, not sufficient — and the DB-dependent ones may have skipped without a pgvector instance. They don't catch architecture or readability problems. |
Red Flags
- PRs merged without any review
- Review that only checks if tests pass (ignoring the other four axes)
- "LGTM" without evidence of actual review
- Security-sensitive changes (ACL, tenancy, secrets, prompt/filter handling) without a
/security-review pass
- Large PRs that are "too big to review properly" (split them / split the OpenSpec change)
- No regression test with a bug-fix PR
- A green CI that skipped DB-dependent pytest (no pgvector)
- A behavioral change that doesn't move the relevant benchmark gate
- Review comments without severity labels
- Accepting "I'll fix it later"
MeKnow notes
- This skill complements the built-in
/code-review and /security-review slash commands and the /solo:address-review PR-comment loop. Run those for the mechanics; hold the change to this five-axis standard.
- Lifecycle: non-trivial work flows through OpenSpec —
/solo:propose → /solo:spec → /solo:spec-pr → /solo:implement (ship-plan → ship-code, with review this skill backs + reconcile) → /solo:address-review → /solo:archive, all inside the platform/ submodule. The autonomous /solo:implement pipeline gates on the resolver-selected gates, so a review that lets a lint-failing, type-failing, or test-skipping change through will stall it.
- Invariants to verify every time (from
.solo/spec/project.md): multi-tenant by default (tenant_id on every table/query/cache key/log line; cross-tenant joins are bugs; cache keys include an ACL-cohort hash); citations mandatory (filter stage carries refuse_if: no_citations); temperature == 0 on synthesize/cite/filter; ACL enforced server-side in retrieve_kb with caller identity inherited (never trusted from the model); versions append-only (BotVersion/KBVersion/golden sets/traces — new child with a parent pointer); the compression invariant (only memo_schema_ref-shaped objects cross stage boundaries); MCP as the internal tool boundary (kb.*, embedded transport, ACP/A2A out of the retrieval loop); no LangChain/LangGraph/Haystack/LlamaIndex; OpenAPI is the API contract (portal types generated); new bot/capability = BotVersion/BotPolicy row + prompt file; new engine capability = a lobe/path registry row.
- Build/test gates (polyglot, resolver-selected):
- Python (uv member dir
D): uv --directory D run ruff check ., ruff format --check ., pyright, python -m pytest -q (coverage pytest -q --cov --cov-report=term-missing).
- Go (module dir
M, pinned go 1.24): go build ./..., go vet ./..., go test -race ./... (coverage go test -race -coverprofile=cover.out ./... && go tool cover -func=cover.out | tail -1).
- TypeScript (
apps/portal): pnpm typecheck, pnpm lint, pnpm test, pnpm test:e2e (gated tier).
- Bench:
bash benchmarks/ci-free-gates.sh (deterministic ~2min ladder, on every py/bench change).
- Always:
solo-spec validate "<change>" --strict.
- Benchmark thresholds (the product's real contract): faithfulness >= 0.85, citation accuracy >= 0.95, p95 latency <= 12s, plus cross-tenant isolation and ACL-escape gates — see
benchmarks/gates/ and tests/fixtures/golden_set.json.
- DB-dependent pytest needs
DATABASE_URL/TEST_DATABASE_URL pointing at a pgvector instance (local docker compose -f docker-compose.dev.yml; CI pgvector/pgvector:pg16). Absent a DB those tests skip (recorded, not failed). Use the security-and-hardening and debugging-and-error-recovery sibling skills for the security and root-cause depth this review references.
Verification
After review is complete:
