review

# Review Thorough, interactive review grounded in project principles. **Do NOT make changes — the review is the deliverable.** ## Autonomous Session Mode When this skill runs in a non-interactive Noodle execution session (for example `Cook`, `Oops`, or `Repair`): - **Do not use AskUserQuestion.** For each issue found, state the recommended action directly instead of presenting options. - **Write findings to a report file** at `brain/audits/review-<date>-<subject>.md` in addition to session output. - **For high-severity issues**, file a todo in `brain/todos.md` using the `/todo` skill. - **For low-severity issues**, note them in the report but don't file separate todos. - Conclude by committing the review report. Do not wait for direction. **Use Tasks to track progress.** Create a task for each step below (TaskCreate), mark each in_progress when starting and completed when done (TaskUpdate). Check TaskList after each step. ## Step 1 — Load Principles Read `brain/principles.md`. Follow every `[[wikilink]]` and read each linked principle file. These principles govern review judgments — refer back to them when evaluating issues. **Do NOT skip this. Do NOT use memorized principle content — always read fresh.** ## Step 2 — Determine Scope Infer what to review from context — the user's message, recent diffs, or referenced plans/PRs. If genuinely ambiguous (nothing to infer), ask. Auto-detect review mode from change size: - **BIG CHANGE** (50+ lines changed, 3+ files, or new architecture) — all sections, at most 4 top issues per section - **SMALL CHANGE** (under those thresholds) — one issue per section ## Step 3 — Gather Context For **SMALL CHANGE** reviews, read files directly in the main context — delegation overhead exceeds the cost of reading a few files. For **BIG CHANGE** reviews, delegate exploration to subagents via the `Task` tool. Spawn exploration agents (subagent_type: `Explore`) to: - Read the code or plan under review - Identify dependencies, callers, and downstream effects - Map relevant types, tests, and infrastructure Run multiple agents in parallel when investigating independent areas. ## Step 4 — Gather Domain Skills Check installed skills (`.claude/skills/`) for any that match the review's domain. Common matches: | Domain | Skill | When | |--------|-------|------| | Frontend UI | `frontend-design` | Web UI components, layouts, visual design | | Codex delegation | `codex` | Tasks delegated to Codex workers | For domains **not listed above**, use `find-skills` to search for a relevant skill. **Invoke matched skills now** — read their output and use domain guidance to inform your review. ## Step 5 — Review Sections Work through all sections, then present the full review. The user can redirect mid-stream if needed. ### 1. Architecture - System design and component boundaries - Dependency graph and coupling - Data flow patterns and bottlenecks - Scaling characteristics and single points of failure - Security architecture (auth, data access, API boundaries) ### 2. Code Quality - Code organization and module structure - DRY violations — be aggressive - Error handling patterns and missing edge cases (call out explicitly) - Technical debt hotspots - Over-engineering or under-engineering relative to foundational-thinking principles; consider redesign-from-first-principles ### 3. Tests - Coverage gaps (unit, integration, e2e) - Test quality and assertion strength - Missing edge case coverage — be thorough - Untested failure modes and error paths ### 4. Performance - N+1 queries and database access patterns - Memory-usage concerns - Caching opportunities - Slow or high-complexity code paths ## Step 6 — Issue Format **NUMBER** each issue (1, 2, 3...). For every issue: - Describe the problem concretely with file and line references - Present 2–3 options with **LETTERS** (A, B, C), including "do nothing" where reasonable - For each option: implementation effort, risk, impact on other code, maintenance burden - Give a recommended option and why, mapped to foundational-thinking principles - Ask whether the user agrees or wants a different direction When using `AskUserQuestion`, label each option with issue NUMBER and option LETTER. Recommended option is always first. ## Interaction Rules - Do not assume priorities on timeline or scale - Do not make changes — present findings and wait for direction - Present all sections together, then ask for feedback once at the end - Per prove-it-works: if something can be tested, note how in the issue description