full-repo-review

name	full-repo-review
description	Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
user-invocable	true
command	full-repo-review
context	fork
allowed-tools	["Agent","Bash","Read","Write","Glob","Grep"]
routing	{"triggers":["full repo review","review entire repo","codebase health check","review all files","full codebase review","audit the codebase","codebase audit","review whole repo","sweep all source files","repo health"],"not_for":"reviewing a single PR, diff, or named file (use systematic-code-review); security-only review (use security-review). This reviews ALL source files in the repo, producing a prioritized issue backlog.","pairs_with":["systematic-code-review","parallel-code-review"],"complexity":"Medium","category":"analysis"}

Full-Repo Review : Codebase Health Check

Orchestrates a comprehensive four-wave review against ALL source files in the repository, not just changed files. Delegates the actual review to the comprehensive-review skill. Produces a prioritized issue backlog instead of auto-fixes.

When to use: Quarterly health checks, after major refactors, onboarding to a new codebase, or any time you want a systemic view of codebase quality. This is expensive (all files through all waves) -- use comprehensive-review for PR-scoped work.

How it differs from comprehensive-review: This skill changes the SCOPE phase to scan all source files instead of git diff, and changes the output from auto-fix to a prioritized backlog report. The review waves themselves are identical.

---

Reference Loading Table

Signal	Load These Files	Why
writing full-repo-review-report.md	report-template.md	Report structure and field definitions
dispatching Wave 1, Wave 2, or Wave 3 review agents	audit-playbook.md	Per-category checklists, evidence requirements, severity mapping, reviewer role assignments

Instructions

Options

• --directory [dir]: Review only a single directory (e.g., scripts/) instead of the full repo. Useful for splitting a large repo into manageable chunks.
• --skip-precheck: Skip the score-component.py deterministic pre-check. Only use if the script is unavailable or you need faster iteration.
• --min-severity [level]: Only include findings at or above a severity threshold (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM) in the report. Default: include all.

---

Phase 1: DISCOVER AND PRE-CHECK

Goal: Identify all source files and run deterministic health checks.

Step 1: Discover source files

Build the complete file list by scanning these directories. Always scan ALL source files -- never fall back to git diff. The entire point of this skill is codebase-wide coverage. If a specific --directory was provided, scope the scan to that directory only.

# Python scripts (exclude test files and __pycache__)
find scripts/ -name "*.py" -not -path "*/tests/*" -not -path "*/__pycache__/*" 2>/dev/null

# Hooks (exclude test files and lib/)
find hooks/ -name "*.py" -not -path "*/tests/*" -not -path "*/lib/*" 2>/dev/null

# Skills (SKILL.md files only)
find skills/ -name "SKILL.md" 2>/dev/null

# Agents
find agents/ -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null

# Docs
find docs/ -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null

Log the total file count. If zero files found, STOP and report: "No source files discovered. Verify you are in the correct repository root."

If the file count is too large for a single session, split by directory (scripts/, hooks/, agents/, skills/ separately) rather than cherry-picking "important" files -- selective review defeats the purpose.

Step 2: Run deterministic pre-check

Run scoring before the LLM review. Deterministic checks are cheap and catch structural issues (missing frontmatter, no error handling section) that LLM reviewers should not waste tokens rediscovering.

python3 ~/.claude/scripts/score-component.py --all-agents --all-skills --json

Parse the JSON output and save each structural score and grade. A score is a triage lead, not a finding: score alone never determines severity. A reviewer must confirm a concrete issue with file-and-line evidence and use the category severity guide before adding it to the backlog.

Save the raw scores -- they go into the report's "Deterministic Health Scores" section.

GATE: At least one source file discovered AND score-component.py ran successfully. If the scoring script fails, proceed with a warning but do not skip the review phase.

---

Phase 2: REVIEW

Goal: Run the comprehensive-review pipeline against all discovered files.

This skill orchestrates scope and output only. The actual four-wave review is performed by comprehensive-review with --review-only mode.

Step 1: Invoke comprehensive-review

Invoke the comprehensive-review skill with these overrides:

• Scope: Pass the full file list from Phase 1 (use --focus [files] mode)
• Mode: Use --review-only to skip auto-fix. Output is a prioritized backlog for human triage, not patches -- full-repo auto-fix touches too many files at once and risks cascading breakage.
• All waves: Run Wave 0, Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 3. Full-repo review needs maximum coverage. Wave 0 supplies per-package context, Waves 1 and 2 inspect cross-cutting and deep risks, and Wave 3 challenges false consensus and low-value findings.
• Checklists: Load references/audit-playbook.md and pass it as prompt context for the wave agents. For each Wave 1/2 agent, include the category checklists matching that agent's lens plus each component's Phase 1 score and grade as triage context only. For Wave 3, include prior findings and the playbook's evidence rules so adversarial reviewers can reject weak findings or surface missed risks.

The comprehensive-review skill handles Wave 0 (per-package), Wave 1 (foundation), Wave 2 (deep dive), and Wave 3 (adversarial) internally. The Checklists override is how the playbook reaches agents dispatched in fresh context.

Audit playbook: The playbook maps categories to wave lenses and specifies evidence requirements per pattern. Agents use the checklists in their prompt to ensure systematic coverage rather than ad-hoc judgment about what to check.

Step 2: Collect findings

After comprehensive-review completes, gather all findings from its output. Each finding should have:

• File: path and line number
• Severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
• Category: security, architecture, dead-code, naming, etc.
• Description: what the issue is
• Suggested fix: how to resolve it

GATE: comprehensive-review completed and produced findings output. If it failed, include what partial findings exist and note the failure in the report.

---

Phase 3: REPORT

Goal: Aggregate all findings into a prioritized backlog report.

Step 1: Merge deterministic and LLM findings

Combine:

• Phase 1 score-component.py results (structural health)
• Phase 2 comprehensive-review findings (deep analysis)

Treat the score as corroborating metadata. Keep a structural issue only when a reviewer independently confirms it with a file, line, and applicable category rule; then use the category's severity guide. A score alone never determines severity. Deduplicate confirmed findings by their evidence, not by score band.

Step 2: Identify systemic patterns

Look for patterns that appear in 3+ files:

• Repeated naming violations
• Consistent missing error handling
• Common failure modes across components
• Documentation gaps that follow a pattern

These go into a dedicated "Systemic Patterns" section -- they represent the highest-leverage fixes because one pattern change improves many files.

Step 3: Write the report

Write full-repo-review-report.md to the repo root with this structure:

# Full-Repo Review Report

**Date**: {date}
**Files reviewed**: {count}
**Total findings**: {count} (Critical: N, High: N, Medium: N, Low: N)

## Deterministic Health Scores

| Component | Score | Grade | Key Issues |
|-----------|-------|-------|------------|
| {name}    | {total}/{max_total} | {A-F} | {summary}  |

## Critical (fix immediately)
- **{file}:{line}** : [{category}] {description}
  - Fix: {suggested fix}

## High (fix this sprint)
- ...

## Medium (fix when touching these files)
- ...

## Low (nice to have)
- ...

## Systemic Patterns
- **{pattern name}**: Seen in {N} files. {description}. Fix: {approach}.

## Review Metadata
- Waves executed: 0, 1, 2, 3
- Duration: {time}
- Score pre-check: {pass/warn/fail}

The report is the final output. Do not auto-apply any fixes -- the user triages findings and batches corrections into manageable PRs.

GATE: Report file exists at full-repo-review-report.md and contains at least the severity sections and deterministic scores.

---

Error Handling

Error	Cause	Solution
No source files found	Wrong working directory or empty repo	Verify cwd is repo root with ls agents/ skills/ scripts/
score-component.py fails	Missing script or dependency	Proceed with warning; the LLM review still runs. Note gap in report.
comprehensive-review times out	Too many files for single session	Split into directory-scoped runs: scripts/, hooks/, agents/, skills/ separately
Report write fails	Permission or path issue	Try writing to /tmp/full-repo-review-report.md as fallback

---

References

• Report Template -- Full structure for full-repo-review-report.md output
• Audit Playbook -- Per-category checklists (correctness, security, performance, test coverage, tech debt, dependencies, DX, docs) with evidence requirements and reviewer role assignments