code-review

name

code-review

description

Review changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes - Standards (does the code follow this repository's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue or PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel subagents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

• Standards - does the code conform to this repository's documented coding standards?
• Spec - does the code faithfully implement the originating issue, PRD, or spec?

Both axes run as parallel subagents so they do not pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been configured for the repository. Use setup-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point - a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they did not specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel subagents.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. Issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.) - fetch via the workflow in docs/agents/issue-tracker.md.
2. A path the user passed as an argument.
3. A PRD or spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there is not one, the Spec subagent will skip and report "no spec available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repository that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.

On top of whatever the repository documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below - a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repository documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• The repository overrides. A documented repository standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
• Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation - and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.

Each smell reads what it is followed by how to fix it; match it against the diff:

• Mysterious Name - a function, variable, or type whose name does not reveal what it does or holds. Rename it; if no honest name comes, the design is murky.
• Duplicated Code - the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. Extract the shared shape and call it from both.
• Feature Envy - a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. Move the method onto the data it envies.
• Data Clumps - the same few fields or parameters keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). Bundle them into one type and pass that.
• Primitive Obsession - a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. Give the concept its own small type.
• Repeated Switches - the same switch or if cascade on the same type recurs across the change. Replace it with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
• Shotgun Surgery - one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. Gather what changes together into one module.
• Divergent Change - one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. Split it so each module changes for one reason.
• Speculative Generality - abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec does not have. Delete it; inline back until a real need appears.
• Message Chains - long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller should not depend on. Hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
• Middle Man - a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. Cut it and call the real target directly.
• Refused Bequest - a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. Drop the inheritance and use composition.

4. Spawn both subagents in parallel

Send a single message with two task tool calls in parallel. Use the general subagent type for both.

Standards subagent prompt - include:

• The full diff command and commit list.
• The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full. The subagent has no other access to it.
• The brief: "Report, per file and hunk where relevant: (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard, citing the standard (file and rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot, naming it and quoting the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repository standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Stay under 400 words."

Spec subagent prompt - include:

• The diff command and commit list.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec.
• The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that was not asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Stay under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec subagent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings. The two axes are deliberately separate (see Why two axes).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any). Do not pick a single winner across axes; that is the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

• Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing: Standards pass, Spec fail.
• Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions: Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.