do-it-review

name	do-it-review
description	Use when a diff needs PR-style review, or findings need atomic repair and same-scope re-review — Standards axis and Spec axis, kept separate.

Do-It Review

Findings-first review, then atomic fix + re-review. Two axes stay separate so neither masks the other.

Leading words: Standards, Spec, smell, clean.

Two Axes (do not merge rankings)

Axis	Question
Standards	Does the code follow this repo’s conventions + a smell baseline?
Spec	Does the diff faithfully implement the originating ask / plan / acceptance?

A change can pass one and fail the other — report both. Prefer parallel reviewer agents when intensity is adversarial so contexts do not pollute each other.

Smell baseline (judgement calls; repo docs override): Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession, Repeated Switches, Shotgun Surgery, Divergent Change, Speculative Generality, Message Chains, Middle Man. Skip what tooling already enforces. Lens detail: ../references/review-lenses.md.

When To Review

Heavy, interface-breaking, non-local risk, or parent asked. Light mechanical: quick inline check.

Intensity	When
review-quick	Light+code; Standard local/low risk — parent inline
review-deep	Standard non-local; Heavy without high-risk lenses — one reviewer
review-adversarial	Heavy + interface/packages/security/migration — multi-lens / parallel axes

Severity

• Blocking — wrong, unsafe, unverifiable, or out of scope
• Important — likely regression, rework, ownership confusion
• Opportunity — useful cleanup; not required for clean

Finding Shape

../references/workflow-kernel.md § Finding Schema:

severity / location / issue / cause_class / required_fix / NOT_CHECKED

One complete batch, severity-ordered. Not clean while Blocking/Important remain.

Fix Then Re-Review

1. Full finding batch before edits (no see-one-fix-one).
2. Cluster shared-root findings; decide batch vs pointwise.
3. Fix atomically; add regression checks when behavior changed.
4. Re-verify finding-specific checks; re-review the repaired surface once.
5. Close Blocking/Important with evidence + a prevention note. Deferral needs explicit user OK or out-of-scope boundary.

Anti-Rationalization

A named reviewer, a marker, or a claimed review pass is not evidence. Choose depth from concrete failure modes and inspect the changed proof path; accept a finding only with code, diff, contract, or command evidence.

Clean Criterion

Scope frozen; both axes checked at required depth; evidence fresh; no open Blocking/Important; Opportunities deferred only when named.

Stop

NEEDS_CONTEXT when unreproducible or out of ownership; BLOCKED when the same finding survives one targeted repair + verify. Do not invent other stop statuses (STILL_OPEN is retired — see workflow-kernel).