code-review

name	code-review
description	Use when reviewing Basic Machines code for house style, architecture risk, pre-merge hardening, or whether a change fits basic-memory/basic-memory-cloud conventions.
license	MIT

Basic Machines Review

Use this skill for repo-local review passes where ordinary code review needs Basic Machines house style and architecture judgment. Report findings only; do not edit code unless the user asks you to fix specific findings.

Scope

Review the current diff or named files against:

• The repo's AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md
• docs/ENGINEERING_STYLE.md
• The touched code paths and tests

Apply only the guidance for the active repo. In basic-memory, prioritize local-first file/database/MCP boundaries. In basic-memory-cloud, prioritize tenant/workspace isolation, cloud worker behavior, and web-v2 state/runtime boundaries.

Review Rubric

Report only concrete, falsifiable risks:

• Cognitive load: Is the change harder to understand than the problem requires?
• Change propagation: Will one product change force edits across unrelated layers?
• Knowledge duplication: Is the same rule encoded in multiple places that can drift?
• Accidental complexity: Did the change add abstractions, fallbacks, or state without need?
• Dependency direction: Are API/MCP/CLI, services, repositories, and UI stores respecting their intended boundaries?
• Domain model distortion: Do names and types still match the product concept, or did a transport/storage detail leak into the domain?
• Test oracle quality: Would the tests fail for the bug or regression the change claims to protect against?

House Rules To Check Explicitly

• No speculative getattr(obj, "attr", default) for unknown model shapes.
• No broad exception swallowing, warning-only failure paths, or hidden fallback behavior.
• No casts or Any that hide an unclear type relationship.
• Dataclasses for internal value/result objects; Pydantic at validation/serialization boundaries.
• Narrow Protocols when only a capability is needed.
• Explicit async/resource ownership, cancellation, and cleanup.
• Meaningful regression tests or verification for risky changes.
• Comments explain why, not what.

Reporting Format

Lead with findings ordered by severity. Each finding should include:

Severity	Use for
high	A likely correctness, security, data-loss, or tenant/workspace isolation failure
medium	A concrete maintainability or boundary risk that can cause future defects
low	A minor consistency issue, ambiguous guidance, or review-only cleanup

severity | file:line | risk category | claim
Why: concrete behavior or code path that proves the risk.
Fix: smallest practical change, or "none obvious" if the risk needs product input.

If there are no findings, say so and note any verification gaps that remain.