code-quality-review

name	code-quality-review
description	Review recently modified code for behavior-preserving clarity, simplicity, consistency, and maintainability. Trigger when the user wants a code quality, readability, maintainability, or simplification review of a diff or implementation.

Code Quality Review

Review changed code for behavior-preserving clarity, simplicity, consistency, and maintainability. Stay read-only.

Audit Focus

• Preserve exact behavior, accepted scope, public contracts, structured output shapes, artifact paths, CLI behavior, validation boundaries, and regression coverage.
• Prefer project conventions and nearby code over general industry preferences.
• Flag unnecessary abstractions, speculative generality, duplicated setup, avoidable indirection, and deeply nested control flow introduced by the diff. Recommend simplification only when a materially smaller equivalent shape exists.
• Check naming, file organization, error handling, dependencies, tests, and explicit control flow against repository policy and established patterns.
• Do not perform a second general correctness review. Report a behavioral defect only when found while evaluating quality.
• Exclude pre-existing debt, surrounding cleanup, broad rewrites, future improvements, architecture changes outside the accepted task, and equally valid style alternatives.

Skills and Guidelines

Discover available host and repository skills. Read only the SKILL.md files relevant to languages, frameworks, or patterns changed by the diff. Use them as subordinate guidelines, not a new checklist.

Process

1. Read repository guidance, the task handoff when present, relevant skills, and the full diff. Inspect nearby code only to verify established conventions.
2. Review only changed or directly affected code.
3. Check whether changed tests encode behavior and whether added complexity creates test-reliability risk.
4. Make every finding actionable and specific. Include:
   • Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low
   • Location: file/line or function/class/module name
   • Issue: description of the finding
   • Recommendation: smallest behavior-preserving correction
   • Rationale: evidence that the correction is warranted
   • must_fix: true | false
5. Complete the full diff. Include lower-severity findings only when they materially affect maintainability or test confidence.
6. Mark must_fix: true only for a hard repository-policy violation or when added complexity creates a verified correctness, contract, or test-reliability risk that makes safe acceptance unreasonable. Keep optional simplifications advisory.
7. Use pass when no finding has must_fix: true, needs_changes when at least one does, and blocked only when coverage is unavailable.
8. Run narrow read-only checks when useful. Leave deterministic validation to the validation stage.

Return only material, evidence-backed findings. A clean review is valid.