code-review

name	code-review
description	Use before commit, deploy, or PR merge, or when operator asks "review this diff" / "is this safe?"; reviews diff vs spec, decisions, maintainability, scope, tests, rollback. Do NOT write or fix code — review only.
source_inspiration	conceptual-only
license_status	clean-room-original
fusebase_flow_version	2.1
risk_level	low
invocation	manual
expected_outputs	["review summary (chat or docs/verification/<slug>-review.md)","blocker list","non-blocker improvement list"]
related_workflows	["verification-gate.md"]
hook_dependencies	["none"]

Code Review

Purpose

Independent review of a diff against the spec contract, locked decisions, and FLOW_RULES — before commit, deploy, or merge. Distinguishes blockers (must fix) from non-blockers (should fix).

When to invoke

• Operator says "review this" / "is this safe to ship?" / "look at the diff"
• AI Developer-session gate report has been pasted and validation-and-qa ran clean — code-review is the next step before deploy
• About to merge a PR (team mode)
• Major refactor in flight and operator wants midpoint review

Do not invoke when

• No diff exists yet (review needs concrete code)
• Clarifications are unresolved or scope is not yet locked — review against an incomplete contract is noise
• Operator wants the code fixed — review surfaces issues; fixes go through implementation

Required inputs

Input	Where it lives	If missing
Diff	git diff <baseline>..HEAD or PR diff URL	Stop; ask which diff to review
Spec	docs/specs/<slug>/spec.md	Stop; review without spec is style-only and limited
Decisions	docs/specs/<slug>/decisions.md	Stop; cannot verify decision adherence
Tasks	docs/specs/<slug>/tasks.md	Stop; cannot verify scope adherence
CLI edition map, for Fusebase Apps work	docs/fusebase-cli-edition.md	Continue with Flow-only review, but mark app-domain review criteria unknown

Procedure

1. Trust the recorded gate verdict (review boundary). When validation-and-qa has recorded a gate verdict ("Gate verified. Phase advances to Deploy."), trust it for the deterministic/cross-artifact fields — AC↔task map, decisions-cited-in-tasks, lint/typecheck status, TODO/FIXME/WIP scan, protected-path diff. Do not re-verify them; carry the gate's AC↔task verdict into the review's spec-alignment matrix by citation. If no gate verdict exists, route to validation-and-qa first — do not absorb its checks here.
2. Run git diff <baseline>..HEAD --stat to get changed files. For Fusebase Apps diffs, read docs/fusebase-cli-edition.md and load the relevant CLI provider skills as review standards for app/runtime/domain behavior.
3. Semantic review per task T: read the corresponding commit (or accumulated diff). Judge:
   • Scope-creep: does the change match the intent of the tasks.md description, not just touch the listed files?
   • Decision adherence in meaning: the gate checks decisions are cited; review checks the code does what the locked decision means (cite letter+number on divergence)
   • Quality-pattern ACs (QP-xx, flow-skills/app-quality-patterns): the cited pattern's Requirement is actually met by the implementation (semantic, by reading — e.g., is the filter state really in the URL, does the delete really handle children)
4. Maintainability scan:
   • Type safety (no broad casts on external JSON, no any)
   • Comment policy (FR-22) — see the dedicated dimension in step 4b
   • Function size and complexity reasonable

4b. Comment-policy dimension (FR-22) — enforce in BOTH directions:

• Flag for removal (findings): comments that restate what the code does; rationale/diagnosis prose already recorded in a decision/ticket/memory (should be replaced by a ≤1-line pointer, not deleted outright); changelog/history narrative (it's in git); comment blocks that exist only because the surrounding file is comment-heavy ("matched density" upward).
• Verify retention (catch over-trimming): a one-line tripwire (a non-obvious constraint an editing agent could violate) and a retrieval pointer ((decision B2), backlog 156) must NOT have been stripped. Deleting a pointer orphans the external record (storage ≠ retrieval) — flag that as a blocker too, not just over-commenting.
• Carve-out: files matching policies/comment-policy.yml: trust_critical_globs (auth/identity/session/gate, migrations, project-derived) keep multi-line tripwires — do not flag those. Apply the rule fully to CRUD/routine code.
• This is a semantic judgment (tripwire vs restate-WHAT), not a regex check — review by reading, never propose a lint/regex gate for it. Reference: docs/comment-policy.md. 4c. Module-size dimension (FR-25):
• Growth check: did this diff grow a file past the ceiling in policies/module-size.yml (default 800), or grow an already-over-ceiling file? The pre-commit ratchet blocks this when a baseline is committed — in warn-only installs (no baseline yet), review is the only line of defense: flag it as a blocker with the extraction remedy.
• Split-quality check (semantic): if the diff extracted code to satisfy the ratchet, verify the seam is a nameable responsibility. Observable blocker criterion: the extraction lands in a file whose NAME does not state a responsibility (utils2.*, helpers2.*, misc.*, extra.*, more.*-style) — no intent inference needed. Named seams are judged by reading; a poor-but-named seam is a non-blocker improvement.
• Exemption check: new exempt_globs entries or baseline edits must be operator-approved and justified (generated / vendored / data-as-code) — an agent-initiated baseline raise or exemption for ordinary source is a blocker.
• Reference: flow-skills/module-size-discipline/SKILL.md. 4d. Correctness / defect-hunt dimension — actively hunt a bug in the CHANGED logic before certifying "safe"; scope is the diff, not the whole codebase. Per changed function/branch:
• Edge cases: empty/zero/one/max inputs, boundary indices, off-by-one in loops/slices, empty collections, first/last element, unicode/whitespace in string handling.
• Error & failure paths: a call inside the change throws / returns error / times out — is the failure surfaced, swallowed, or half-applied (partial write, no cleanup)?
• Concurrency / races: shared state without ordering guarantees, check-then-act (TOCTOU) windows, interleaving async handlers, retries that double-apply.
• Input validation: external input (API params, file content, env, user text) reaching the changed logic unvalidated; unchecked coercion of external JSON.
• State & lifecycle: resources closed on ALL paths incl. the error path; re-run idempotency. Verdict discipline: "no defect found" is claimable only after the hunt ran — name the top-2 suspect paths examined and why they hold (1 line each in the review summary). A found defect is a blocker when reachable on a production path; non-blocker in test/dev scaffolding.

5. Test coverage scan (the deterministic AC-coverage map is the gate's; this is the semantic half). Blocker criteria — flag any of:
   • No test at all for a changed production behavior that has a testable seam.
   • Meaningless assertion: only asserts "no exception" / truthy / blind snapshot-update — observed output never compared to expected.
   • Tests the mock: assertions verify mock wiring, not the changed logic's outcome.
   • Happy-path only where the diff itself added error/edge branches (the new branch is dead code to the suite). Each is a blocker when the changed behavior is production-path; non-blocker for dev tooling/scaffolding. Remedy: name the missing case — do NOT write the test yourself.
6. Rollback safety: each commit individually revertable; no commit straddles unrelated changes.
7. Output review summary in chat:
   • Blockers (must fix before deploy)
   • Non-blockers (improvement candidates; can be follow-up tickets)
   • Spec alignment matrix (table; deterministic AC↔task statuses carried from the gate verdict by citation)
8. If invoked from operator chat: end with "Review complete. blockers, non-blockers. Operator decides whether to fix or proceed." Proceeding to deploy past an open blocker is not a chat-side call: it requires the per-blocker recorded waiver in the deploy handoff (release-deploy-reporting § When to invoke) — step-4d/step-5 safety blockers especially.

Output artifacts

Artifact	Path / location	Mode
Review summary	chat output	Mode A
Optional persistent record	docs/verification/<slug>-review.md	Mode B (full)
Spec alignment matrix	embedded in review summary	Mode B (full, table)

Failure cases

Failure mode	Detection	Response
Diff straddles multiple unrelated changes	Commits cover code outside current ticket scope	Flag as blocker; recommend split into separate tickets
Locked decision contradicted by code	Decision says X, code does Y	Flag as blocker; redirect via decisions.md update OR fix code
AC unimplemented	Surfaced while reading the diff (the gate owns the deterministic AC↔task scan)	Flag as blocker; either add task or remove AC explicitly
Protected path edited without exception	Surfaced while reading the diff (the gate owns the deterministic FR-07 scan)	Flag as blocker per FR-07; require approval artifact OR revert
Type safety regression	New any / broad casts on external JSON introduced	Flag as blocker if production-path; non-blocker if test fixture
Comment-policy violation (FR-22)	WHAT-restating / duplicated-rationale / changelog comments added, or "matched density" upward in a comment-heavy file	Flag as non-blocker (note the lines); not a deploy blocker unless it obscures a real defect
Comment over-trim (FR-22)	A load-bearing tripwire or (decision/backlog ...) retrieval pointer was deleted	Flag as blocker — deleting the pointer orphans the external record (storage ≠ retrieval); restore it
Over-ceiling growth (FR-25)	Diff grows a gated file past the ceiling / grows an over-ceiling file (check policies/module-size.yml + baseline)	Flag as blocker; remedy = extract along a responsibility seam or explicit operator exemption
Mechanical split (FR-25)	Extraction lands in a file whose name states no responsibility (utils2/helpers2/misc/extra-style)	Flag as blocker (observable criterion — no intent inference); a named-but-debatable seam is a non-blocker improvement
Agent-raised baseline / exemption (FR-25)	Baseline values raised or exempt_globs widened without operator approval	Flag as blocker — exemptions are operator decisions
Correctness defect in changed logic	Defect-hunt (step 4d) finds a reachable edge-case / error-path / race / validation bug in the diff	Flag as blocker with a concrete failing-input → wrong-outcome scenario; production-path defects block deploy, scaffolding-only defects are non-blockers
Missing or meaningless tests (step 5)	Changed production behavior has no test, assertion-free tests, mock-only assertions, or happy-path-only coverage of new error/edge branches	Flag as blocker (production-path) and name the missing case; test/dev scaffolding gaps are non-blockers

Escalation path

• Architectural concern beyond review scope (e.g., decision should have been redirected) → recommend re-opening decisions.md lock
• Security-relevant finding → invoke security-permissions-review skill
• Performance-relevant finding → file follow-up backlog ticket; not in v0.1 review scope

Anti-patterns

• Do NOT fix code yourself; surface findings, operator + implementer fix
• Do NOT lock-or-redirect decisions; that's the operator's call (FR-11)
• Do NOT block on stylistic preferences absent a lint rule; flag as non-blocker
• Do NOT re-verify deterministic gate fields (AC↔task map, decisions-cited, lint/typecheck, TODO scan, protected paths) when a recorded gate verdict exists — trust it; absent a verdict, route to validation-and-qa first
• Do NOT enforce the comment policy (FR-22) by proposing a regex/lint gate — it's a semantic call; review by reading. And don't only hunt over-commenting: a deleted tripwire/pointer is the symmetric failure (over-trim) and is a blocker.
• Do NOT judge split quality (FR-25) by line counts alone — the gate already counts lines; review checks the semantic part (is the seam a nameable responsibility), which no regex can.
• Do NOT certify "safe to ship" from scope/decision/style/size checks alone — a review without the step-4d defect hunt never looked for a bug, and "is this safe?" was the question. An empty blocker list must carry the hunt evidence (top-2 suspect paths examined).

Clean-room note

Original Fusebase Flow content. Designed after reviewing public AI coding workflow patterns; no third-party code, prompts, skill files, or hook scripts are copied. See docs/source-map.md.