kn-review

name	kn-review
description	Use when reviewing implemented code before committing — multi-perspective review with severity-based findings

Code Review

Post-implementation quality review. Run after kn-implement, before kn-commit.

Announce: "Using kn-review for task [ID] (or current changes)."

Core principle: MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW → SEVERITY TRIAGE → FIX P1 → COMMIT.

When to Use

• After implementing a task, before committing
• When user says "review my code", "check this", "review before commit"
• As the review step inside /kn-flow after each task or integrated wave
• As part of /kn-go pipeline (optional — can be enabled)

If the user asks to review and finish a whole approved spec or task wave, route to /kn-flow @doc/<spec-path> so review is paired with implementation and combined verification.

Inputs

• Task ID (optional — if provided, reviews against task ACs and spec)
• Current git diff (always)

Step 1: Gather Review Context

git diff --stat
git diff

If task ID provided:

mcp_knowns_tasks({ "action": "get", "taskId": "$ARGUMENTS" })

If task has spec:

mcp_knowns_docs({ "action": "get", "path": "<spec-path>", "smart": true })

Search for relevant conventions and past review patterns:

mcp_knowns_search({ "action": "search", "query": "<feature area>", "type": "memory" })

---

Step 2: Multi-Perspective Review

Review the diff from 4 perspectives. For each, produce findings with severity.

2a. Code Quality

• Readability and simplicity
• DRY — duplicated logic
• Error handling — missing or swallowed errors
• Type safety — any any, unsafe casts, missing types
• Naming — unclear variable/function names

2b. Architecture

• Separation of concerns — business logic in handlers, UI logic in components
• Coupling — tight dependencies between unrelated modules
• API design — consistent patterns, proper HTTP methods/status codes
• File organization — follows project conventions

2c. Security

• Input validation — user input sanitized
• Auth — proper authorization checks
• Secrets — no hardcoded credentials or tokens
• Data exposure — sensitive data in logs, responses, or error messages

2d. Completeness

• Missing tests for new logic
• Edge cases not handled
• Integration gaps — new code not wired into existing flows
• Stubs or TODOs left in code
• ACs from task not fully met (if task provided)

---

Step 3: Triage Findings

Classify each finding:

Severity	Criteria	Action
P1	Security vuln, data corruption, breaking change, stub shipped	Blocks commit — must fix
P2	Performance issue, architecture concern, missing test	Should fix before commit
P3	Minor cleanup, naming, style	Record for later

Calibration: Not everything is P1. Severity inflation wastes time. When in doubt, P2.

---

Step 4: Report Findings

Present findings grouped by severity:

Review Complete — [task-id or "current changes"]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════

P1 (blocks commit): X findings
- [file:line] Description — why it's critical

P2 (should fix): X findings
- [file:line] Description — impact

P3 (nice to have): X findings
- [file:line] Description

Verdict: PASS / BLOCKED (P1 exists)

---

Step 5: Handle Results

If P1 findings exist — HARD GATE

⛔ P1 findings block commit. Fix these first:

1. [Finding + suggested fix]
2. [Finding + suggested fix]

After fixing, run /kn-review again.

Do NOT proceed to commit. Do NOT offer to skip P1.

If only P2/P3

✓ No blocking issues. P2 findings recommended:

1. [Finding + suggested fix]

Options:

• Fix P2s now, then /kn-commit
• If running inside /kn-flow, return to the flow after fixing or explicitly deferring P2s
• Commit as-is: /kn-commit
• Create follow-up task for P2s

If clean

✓ Review passed. No issues found.

Ready: /kn-commit

---

Step 6: Track Findings (optional)

If P2 findings are deferred, create a follow-up task:

mcp_knowns_tasks({ "action": "create", "title": "Review follow-up: <summary>",
  "description": "P2 findings from review of task-<id>:\n- Finding 1\n- Finding 2",
  "priority": "low",
  "labels": ["review-followup"]
})

---

Artifact Verification (if task has spec)

For each deliverable in the spec, verify 3 levels:

1. EXISTS — file/component/route exists
2. SUBSTANTIVE — not a stub (no return null, empty handlers, TODO-only implementations)
3. WIRED — imported and used in the integration layer

Report:

• ✅ L1+L2+L3: fully wired
• ⚠️ L1+L2 only: created but not integrated → P2
• 🛑 L1 only (stub): exists but empty → P1
• 🛑 Missing: not found → P1

---

Shared Output Contract

Required order for the final user-facing response:

1. Goal/result — review verdict (PASS / BLOCKED / PASS with warnings).
2. Key details — findings by severity, artifact verification status, suggested fixes.
3. Next action — /kn-commit if passed, fix instructions if blocked.

For kn-review, the key details should cover:

• finding count by severity
• specific file:line references for each finding
• whether artifact verification passed (if spec-linked)
• concrete fix suggestions for P1/P2

---

Related Skills

• /kn-flow @doc/<spec-path> — orchestrate review as part of full spec/task-wave execution
• /kn-implement <id> — implement before review
• /kn-commit — commit after review passes
• /kn-verify — SDD-level verification (broader than code review)

Checklist

• Diff reviewed from 4 perspectives
• Findings triaged by severity
• P1 findings block commit
• Artifact verification done (if spec linked)
• Returned control to /kn-flow when reviewing inside an active flow
• Next step suggested

Red Flags

• Approving code with P1 findings
• Marking stubs as complete
• Not checking the actual diff (reviewing from memory)
• Severity inflation — calling everything P1
• Skipping security perspective
• Reviewing one task as if the whole spec is complete when /kn-flow is needed