review-ios

description	Comprehensive iOS/SwiftUI code review with optional parallel agents
name	review-ios
disable-model-invocation	true

iOS Code Review

Arguments

• --parallel: If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one specialized subagent per technology area
• Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)

Hard gates

Complete in order before writing Issues in the output (empty scope is allowed; fabricated findings are not).

1. Scope gate: You have an explicit list of .swift paths under review (from Step 1 or a user-provided path). Pass: List captured in working notes or one line: No Swift files in scope — then stop with no Issues.
2. Linter gate (style): Step 2 commands ran for this tree; if no .swiftlint.yml / .swiftlint.yaml, note that in one line. Pass: You do not report a style issue that SwiftLint would already enforce for that line when config exists and swiftlint succeeds.
3. Protocol gate: review-verification-protocol is loaded before Step 6. Pass: If you report any Issues, at least one finding was checked against that checklist (name the item in Review Summary or on that Issue); if you report zero Issues, state Protocol applied; no issues in Review Summary.
4. Evidence gate (Critical/Major): For each Critical or Major item, you re-read the file at FILE:LINE (full surrounding context, not only the diff hunk). Pass: The Issue text matches observable code at that location.

Do not begin Step 6 until Gates 1–3 are satisfied (skills load order stays Steps 4–5).

Step 1: Identify Changed Files

git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.swift$'

Step 2: Verify Linter Status

CRITICAL: Run SwiftLint BEFORE flagging any style issues.

# Check if SwiftLint config exists and run it
if [ -f ".swiftlint.yml" ] || [ -f ".swiftlint.yaml" ]; then
    swiftlint lint --quiet <changed_files>
fi

Rules:

• If SwiftLint passes for a specific rule, DO NOT flag that issue manually
• SwiftLint configuration is authoritative for style rules
• Only flag issues that linters cannot detect (semantic issues, architectural problems)

Step 3: Detect Technologies

# SwiftUI (always with swift files that import it)
grep -r "import SwiftUI" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# SwiftData
grep -r "import SwiftData\|@Model\|@Query" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# Swift Testing
grep -r "import Testing\|@Test\|#expect" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# Combine
grep -r "import Combine\|AnyPublisher\|@Published" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# URLSession (explicit async patterns)
grep -r "URLSession\.shared\|\.data(from:\|\.download(from:" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# CloudKit
grep -r "import CloudKit\|CKContainer\|CKRecord" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# WidgetKit
grep -r "import WidgetKit\|TimelineProvider\|WidgetFamily" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# App Intents
grep -r "import AppIntents\|@AppIntent\|AppEntity" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# HealthKit
grep -r "import HealthKit\|HKHealthStore\|HKQuery" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# WatchKit
grep -r "import WatchKit\|WKExtension\|WKInterfaceController" --include="*.swift" -l | head -3

# Animations (beyond basic withAnimation)
grep -r "PhaseAnimator\|KeyframeAnimator\|matchedGeometryEffect\|navigationTransition\|scrollTransition\|CABasicAnimation\|CASpringAnimation\|CAKeyframeAnimation\|UIViewPropertyAnimator\|UIDynamicAnimator\|\.symbolEffect\|\.contentTransition\|CustomAnimation\|MeshGradient" --include= -l |  -3

Step 4: Load Verification Protocol

Load the review-verification-protocol skill and keep its checklist in mind throughout the review.

Step 5: Load Skills

Load each applicable skill below (read its SKILL.md).

Always load:

• swift-code-review
• swiftui-code-review

Conditionally load based on detection:

Condition	Skill
SwiftData detected	swiftdata-code-review
Swift Testing detected	swift-testing-code-review
Combine detected	combine-code-review
URLSession detected	urlsession-code-review
CloudKit detected	cloudkit-code-review
WidgetKit detected	widgetkit-code-review
App Intents detected	app-intents-code-review
HealthKit detected	healthkit-code-review
WatchKit detected	watchos-code-review
Animation code detected	ios-animation-code-review

Step 6: Review

If the agent supports subagents (and --parallel is requested), dispatch one subagent per technology area in parallel; otherwise run sequentially. Both paths produce identical output — the same consolidated findings.

Sequential (default):

1. Load applicable skills
2. Review Swift quality issues first (concurrency, memory, error handling)
3. Review SwiftUI patterns (view composition, state management, accessibility)
4. Review detected technology areas
5. Consolidate findings

Parallel (when supported, via --parallel):

1. Detect all technologies upfront
2. Dispatch one subagent per technology area
3. Each agent loads its skill and reviews its domain
4. Wait for all agents
5. Consolidate findings

Before Flagging Issues

1. Check SwiftLint output - don't duplicate linter findings
2. Check code comments for intentional patterns (// MARK:, // NOTE:, etc.)
3. Consider Apple framework idioms - what looks wrong generically may be correct for the framework
4. Trace async code paths before claiming missing error handling or race conditions

Step 7: Verify Findings

Before reporting any issue:

1. Re-read the actual code (not just diff context)
2. For "unused" claims - did you search all references?
3. For "missing" claims - did you check framework/parent handling?
4. For syntax issues - did you verify against current version docs?
5. Remove any findings that are style preferences, not actual issues

Step 8: Review Convergence

Single-Pass Completeness

You MUST report ALL issues across ALL categories (style, logic, types, tests, security, performance) in a single review pass. Do not hold back issues for later rounds.

Before submitting findings, ask yourself:

• "If all my recommended fixes are applied, will I find NEW issues in the fixed code?"
• "Am I requesting new code (tests, types, modules) that will itself need review?"

If yes to either: include those anticipated downstream issues NOW, in this review, so the author can address everything at once.

Scope Rules

• Review ONLY the code in the diff and directly related existing code
• Do NOT request new features, test infrastructure, or architectural changes that didn't exist before the diff
• If test coverage is missing, flag it as ONE Minor issue ("Missing test coverage for X, Y, Z") — do NOT specify implementation details like mock libraries, behaviour extraction, or dependency injection patterns that would introduce substantial new code
• Typespecs, documentation, and naming issues are Minor unless they affect public API contracts
• Do NOT request adding new dependencies (e.g. Mox, testing libraries, linter plugins)

Fix Complexity Budget

Fixes to existing code should be flagged at their real severity regardless of size.

However, requests for net-new code that didn't exist before the diff must be classified as Informational:

• Adding a new dependency (e.g. Mox, a linter plugin)
• Creating entirely new modules, files, or test suites
• Extracting new behaviours, protocols, or abstractions

These are improvement suggestions for the author to consider in future work, not review blockers.

Iteration Policy

If this is a re-review after fixes were applied:

• ONLY verify that previously flagged issues were addressed correctly
• Do NOT introduce new findings unrelated to the previous review's issues
• Accept Minor/Nice-to-Have issues that weren't fixed — do not re-flag them
• The goal of re-review is VERIFICATION, not discovery

Output Format

## Review Summary

[1-2 sentence overview of findings]

## Issues

### Critical (Blocking)

1. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: Description of what's wrong
   - Why: Why this matters (crash, data loss, security, race condition)
   - Fix: Specific recommended fix

### Major (Should Fix)

2. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: ...
   - Why: ...
   - Fix: ...

### Minor (Nice to Have)

N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: ...
   - Why: ...
   - Fix: ...

### Informational (For Awareness)

N. [FILE:LINE] SUGGESTION_TITLE
   - Suggestion: ...
   - Rationale: ...

## Good Patterns

- [FILE:LINE] Pattern description (preserve this)

## Verdict

Ready: Yes | No | With fixes 1-N (Critical/Major only; Minor items are acceptable)
Rationale: [1-2 sentences]

Post-Fix Verification

After fixes are applied, run:

# Swift build and lint
swift build
swiftlint lint --quiet

# Run tests if present
swift test

All checks must pass before approval.

Rules

• Load skills BEFORE reviewing (not after)
• Number every issue sequentially (1, 2, 3...)
• Include FILE:LINE for each issue
• Separate Issue/Why/Fix clearly
• Categorize by actual severity
• Check for Swift 6 strict concurrency issues
• Run verification after fixes
• Report ALL issues in a single pass — do not hold back findings for later iterations
• Re-reviews verify previous fixes ONLY — no new discovery
• Requests for net-new code (new modules, dependencies, test suites) are Informational, not blocking
• The Verdict ignores Minor and Informational items — only Critical and Major block approval