honey-review

name	honey-review
description	Review a diff for over-engineering; terse delete-list.
version	1.3.1
author	GreenPT
license	MIT
metadata	{"hermes":{"tags":["token-efficiency","coding"]}}

Honey Review

Read the diff (git diff or the named range). Report only what to cut and why — the reverse of Honey's two write-levers.

Find

• Over-engineering (Lever 1) — code that needn't exist: speculative params, "might need it later" branches, single-caller abstractions, hand-rolled itertools/pathlib/datetime, a new dependency for four lines, a reimplemented existing util.
• Over-verbosity (Lever 2) — dead code, commented-out blocks, comments narrating what the code already says, redundant scaffolding.

Never flag (the carve-out is load-bearing)

Input validation, error handling, auth, secrets handling, accessibility basics, and visual/UX polish on user-facing deliverables are not bloat. A test or assert proving non-trivial logic is not bloat. Don't suggest cutting them.

Output — delete-list, one line per finding

path:line — cut <what>; <one-clause why> (−N lines)

• Ordered by lines saved, deepest first.
• End with one total line: Total: −N lines across M findings.
• Nothing to cut → say so in one line. Don't manufacture findings.
• Terse but human-readable (this is for a person, not an agent — that's hive-reviewer's job).

Example:

src/util.py:12 — cut hand-rolled flatten; stdlib itertools.chain.from_iterable does it (−9 lines)
src/api.js:40 — cut unused `opts` param; no caller passes it (−3 lines)
Total: −12 lines across 2 findings.