review

name	review
description	Review code changes, auto-fix safe issues, and report bugs
disable-model-invocation	true

review

Code review with craftsman's eye. Auto-fix obvious issues, surface real bugs.

Reference @AGENTS.md for project conventions. Apply those patterns as review criteria.

Critical Rules

1. AUTO-FIX safe obvious issues - Don't ask permission for no-brainers
2. HUNT FOR BUGS - Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions first
3. WAIT for confirmation - On BUG/FIX, don't execute until user says "go"
4. BE CONCISE - One-line items, choices at END
5. USE clickable links - path/to/file.ts:123 format only

Categories

Category	What	Action
[BUG]	Logic errors, security, data loss, race conditions	Report → wait
[FIX]	Type gaps, missing error handling, test gaps, slop	Report → wait
[AUTO]	Unused imports, dead code, console.log, typos	Fix immediately
[CONSIDER]	Refactors, style opinions, nice-to-have	Mention only

AUTO Criteria (all must be true)

• Zero risk of breaking behavior
• <5 seconds to fix
• No judgment call needed

AUTO examples:

• Unused imports/variables
• Trailing whitespace
• Console.log (unless intentional)
• Dead/unreachable code
• Obvious typos in comments/strings

NOT AUTO (needs confirmation):

• Removing "unused" function (might be used elsewhere)
• Type changes (might change behavior)
• Any logic change
• AI slop removal (might be intentional)

Project-Specific Checks

Always ask these questions during review:

Can this be simpler?

• Is there unnecessary abstraction? Could this be done with less code?
• Are there helpers/utils being created for one-time operations?
• Over-engineered error handling, feature flags, or backwards-compat shims?
• Unnecessary wrapper components or HOCs?

Can we remove any code?

• Dead code, unused exports, commented-out blocks?
• Re-exports or barrel files (we don't use barrel files)?
• Backwards-compatibility hacks like renamed _vars or // removed comments?
• Types/interfaces exported but only used in the same file?

Is it DRY without premature abstraction?

• Obvious copy-paste of entire functions or large blocks → refactor
• But 2-3 similar lines are fine — don't abstract too early
• The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication

Is it structured correctly?

• Colocate page-specific components next to their page (not in a nested components/ subfolder — we don't do that in route directories)
• General/reusable components go in apps/web/components/
• API routes: One resource per route, not combined data endpoints
• Server actions for mutations, not POST routes
• Validation schemas in separate .validation.ts files
• Helper functions at the bottom of files, not the top
• All imports at the top — no mid-file dynamic imports
• No barrel files (index.ts re-exporting everything from a folder)

Does it follow project patterns? (see @AGENTS.md)

• GET routes wrapped with withAuth or withEmailAccount?
• Response types exported as Awaited<ReturnType<typeof fn>>?
• SWR for client-side data fetching?
• LoadingContent for loading/error states?
• useAction from next-safe-action/hooks for form submissions?
• Zod schemas with z.infer<typeof schema> instead of duplicate interfaces?
• Self-documenting code? Comments explain "why" not "what"?
• logger.trace() for PII fields?
• Test changes follow .claude/skills/testing/SKILL.md?
• Tests avoid mocking @/utils/logger?
• If draft-generation prompt, retrieval, routing, or post-processing changed, was apps/web/utils/ai/reply/draft-attribution.ts DRAFT_PIPELINE_VERSION bumped for analytics?

Learnings check

• Did this change teach us something that should be captured in AGENTS.md or this review file?
• Are there patterns that keep coming up that we should document?

Mindset

Inheritance Test: Would I curse the previous author? Understand at 2am?

Pride Test: Would I put my name on this?

Workflow

Step 0: Determine Scope & Group Files

Auto-detect: conversation changes → staged → current diff

git diff --cached --name-only  # or HEAD

Group files by area/dependency:

Batch 1: apps/web/app/api/agent/* (3 files)
Batch 2: apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/agent/* (related components)
Batch 3: apps/web/utils/actions/* (2 files)

Output: Found X files in Y batches

──────────

Step 1: Create Review Plan (TODO)

BEFORE reading any file content, create todo list:

- [ ] Batch 1: API routes (skills, allowed-actions)
- [ ] Batch 2: agent page components (agent-page, chat, tools)
- [ ] Batch 3: server actions (agent.ts, agent.validation.ts)

Use todo_write to track batches.

──────────

Step 2: Process Each Batch

For each batch:

1. Read diff for batch files only (git diff --cached -- path/to/files)
2. Review & categorize issues
3. Auto-fix [AUTO] items immediately
4. Note [BUG]/[FIX]/[CONSIDER] items
5. Mark batch complete in todos

Issue format:

1. **[BUG]** Race condition in concurrent saves — `src/db.ts:45`
2. **[FIX]** Missing error boundary — `src/App.tsx:12`
3. **[CONSIDER]** Extract to custom hook — `src/Form.tsx:34`

After each batch:

Batch 1 done: AUTO: 2 fixed | BUG: 1 | FIX: 2

──────────

Step 3: Summary & Options (After All Batches)

Total: BUG: X | FIX: X | CONSIDER: X (auto-fixed: Y)

Issues:
1. [BUG] ... — `path:line`
2. [FIX] ... — `path:line`

What to fix?
- a) BUG + FIX [recommended]
- b) BUG only
- c) All including CONSIDER
- d) Custom (e.g., "1,3")

I'll assume a) if you don't specify.

Learnings:
- Any patterns worth adding to AGENTS.md?
- Any new review checks to add to this file?

STOP. Wait for selection.

──────────

Step 4: Execute Fixes

Process fixes batch-by-batch (same grouping):

1. Update todo list with selected fixes
2. For each batch:
   • Read relevant file(s)
   • Apply fixes
   • Mark complete
3. Run linter if applicable

Severity Guide

BUG (Logic/Security):

• Business logic errors, wrong conditions
• Race conditions, data loss
• Security: injection, XSS, exposed secrets
• API routes missing auth middleware
• Null/undefined not handled
• Edge cases that break

FIX (Quality):

• Type safety gaps, unsafe casts
• Missing error handling
• Test coverage gaps
• AI slop (WHAT comments, unnecessary try/catch, as any)
• Missing validation
• Combined API routes that should be separate
• POST routes used for mutations instead of server actions
• Barrel files / re-export patterns

CONSIDER (Opinions):

• Refactoring opportunities
• "I would do it differently"
• Performance micro-optimizations
• Style preferences

Git Commands

# Staged
git diff --cached
git diff --cached --name-only

# All uncommitted
git diff HEAD
git diff HEAD --name-only

Error Handling

Error	Response
No changes	"Check git status or specify files"
File not found	List available, ask to specify
Binary files	Skip, mention in summary
Large file (>10k)	"Review specific sections?"