code-review

name	code-review
description	Structured code review protocol for inspecting code quality against the full rule set. Use when auditing code written by yourself or another agent, during the /audit workflow, or when the user asks for a code review.

Code Review Skill

Purpose

Systematically review code against the full antigravity rule set. Catches issues that linters miss: architectural violations, missing observability, business logic errors, pattern inconsistencies.

When to Invoke

• During the /audit workflow (Phase 1: Code Review)
• When user asks for a code review outside any workflow
• Best practice: Invoke in a fresh conversation (not the same one that authored the code) to avoid confirmation bias

Review Process

1. Scope the Review

Identify the files/features to review. Determine the review scope:

• Feature review — all files in a feature directory
• PR review — only changed files
• Full codebase audit — all features

2. Load the Rule Set

Read all applicable rules from .agents/rules/. Use rule-priority.md for severity classification.

3. Review Categories (Priority Order)

Review each file/feature against these categories, in order from rule-priority.md:

Critical (Must Fix)

• Security — injection, hardcoded secrets, broken auth
• Data loss — missing error handling on writes, no transaction boundaries
• Resource leaks — unclosed connections, missing cleanup

Major (Should Fix)

• Testability — I/O not behind interfaces, untested error paths
• Observability — missing logging on operations, no correlation IDs
• Error handling — empty catch blocks, swallowed errors
• Architecture — circular dependencies, wrong layer access

Minor (Nice to Fix)

• Pattern consistency — deviation from established codebase patterns
• Naming — unclear variable/function names
• Code organization — functions too long, mixed responsibilities

Nit (Optional)

• Style — formatting issues the linter would catch
• Documentation — missing comments on complex logic

4. Produce Findings

Output a structured findings document:

# Code Review: {Feature/Module Name}
Date: {date}
Reviewer: AI Agent (fresh context)

## Summary
- **Files reviewed:** N
- **Issues found:** N (X critical, Y major, Z minor, W nit)

## Critical Issues
- [ ] **[SEC]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
- [ ] **[DATA]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)

## Major Issues
- [ ] **[TEST]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
- [ ] **[OBS]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)

## Minor Issues
- [ ] **[PAT]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)

## Nit
- [ ] {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)

## Rules Applied
List of rules referenced during this review.

5. Save the Report

When invoked via the /audit workflow, you MUST persist the findings to the repo:

Path: docs/audits/review-findings-{feature}-{YYYY-MM-DD}-{HHmm}.md

1. Create docs/audits/ if it doesn't exist
2. Write the findings document to that path
3. This makes the report accessible from other conversations and agents

When invoked as a standalone review (not via /audit), saving to docs/audits/ is recommended but optional.

6. Severity Tags

Tag	Category	Rule Source
[SEC]	Security	security-principles.md
[DATA]	Data integrity	error-handling-principles.md
[RES]	Resource leak	resources-and-memory-management-principles.md
[TEST]	Testability	architectural-pattern.md, testing-strategy.md
[OBS]	Observability	logging-and-observability-mandate.md
[ERR]	Error handling	error-handling-principles.md
[ARCH]	Architecture	architectural-pattern.md, project-structure.md
[PAT]	Pattern consistency	code-organization-principles.md
[INT]	Integration contract	api-design-principles.md
[DB]	Database design	database-design-principles.md
[CFG]	Configuration	configuration-management-principles.md

7. Language-Specific Anti-Patterns

Load the anti-pattern checklist for the language(s) under review:

Language	Anti-Patterns
Go	languages/go.md
TypeScript	languages/typescript.md
Python	languages/python.md
Rust	languages/rust.md
Java	languages/java.md
C#	languages/csharp.md
Swift	languages/swift.md
Flutter/Dart	languages/flutter.md
C++	languages/cpp.md
Kotlin	languages/kotlin.md
PHP	languages/php.md
Ruby	languages/ruby.md

Anti-patterns listed in language files are auto-fail — they require no judgment call. If the pattern exists in the code, it is a finding.

8. Cross-Boundary Checks

For full audits, cross-boundary concerns (integration contracts, database schema, configuration hygiene, dependency health, test coverage gaps) are checked via the dedicated dimension checklist in the /audit workflow — Phase 1.5: Cross-Boundary Review.

When invoking this skill standalone (outside /audit), apply the applicable dimensions from that checklist manually and tag findings with [INT], [DB], or [CFG] as appropriate.

Zero-Findings Guard: If this review produces fewer than 3 findings, you MUST produce a "Dimensions Covered" attestation section in the findings document, listing each cross-boundary dimension and the specific files or queries you examined. Only then may you declare a clean result.

---

Rule Compliance

This skill enforces all rules in .agents/rules/. Key references:

• Rule Priority @rule-priority.md (severity classification)
• Security Principles @security-principles.md
• Architectural Patterns @architectural-pattern.md
• Testing Strategy @testing-strategy.md
• Logging and Observability Mandate @logging-and-observability-mandate.md
• Error Handling Principles @error-handling-principles.md