vac-optimizer/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

name, description

name

description

code-review

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

Two-axis review of the changes the user selected, including working changes when requested:

• Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
• Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?

Use independent parallel sub-agents when available, then aggregate their findings. If delegation is unavailable, review both axes directly and disclose the limitation.

Use docs/agents/issue-tracker.md for remote specs. A missing tracker configuration does not block reviewing local changes or a supplied spec.

Process

1. Pin the requested scope

Honor the user's baseline and file scope. For a pre-commit review, use the implementation's recorded starting commit and task-owned paths; for an ordinary review of uncommitted work, default to HEAD. Ask only when an unresolved baseline or scope choice would materially change the review.

Resolve the baseline to a commit with git rev-parse --verify '<ref>^{commit}'. For a branch/PR review, use its merge-base when the request is for changes introduced on that branch; for an explicit commit-to-commit comparison, use the supplied commit directly.

Choose and record commands appropriate to the selected scope, adding -- <task-paths> where needed:

Scope	Tracked changes	New files
Committed only	git diff <base> HEAD	Included if committed
Current working result, including staged and unstaged	git diff <base>	List with git ls-files --others --exclude-standard and read each in-scope file
Staged only	git diff --cached <base>	Included if staged

Inspect git status --short and distinguish pre-existing user changes from task changes. When ownership overlaps, obtain the task's actual patch or state the limitation; do not attribute the entire dirty checkout to the implementation. Record relevant commits with git log <base>..HEAD --oneline. An empty tracked diff is not an empty review until in-scope new files are checked. Report genuinely empty scope directly; resolve invalid refs before dispatch.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. The user's explicit spec, ticket, path, or acceptance criteria in the conversation. Preserve it as authoritative even when commits reference other work.
2. Issue/PR references in relevant commit messages — fetch via docs/agents/issue-tracker.md when no explicit source was supplied.
3. A PRD/spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found or the source is inaccessible, continue the Standards review and report the Spec coverage limitation. Ask for a source only when needed to answer the user's request; do not invent requirements or require tracker setup.

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.

On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
• Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.

Each smell reads what it is → how to fix; match it against the diff:

• Mysterious Name — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
• Duplicated Code — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
• Feature Envy — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
• Data Clumps — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
• Primitive Obsession — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
• Repeated Switches — the same switch/if-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
• Shotgun Surgery — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
• Divergent Change — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
• Speculative Generality — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
• Message Chains — long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
• Middle Man — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
• Refused Bequest — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Use the environment's available delegation tool; do not depend on a product-specific Agent or Task name. Give each reviewer the same resolved baseline, tracked diff commands, in-scope new-file list, task ownership boundaries, and current snapshot. Review-only agents must not modify files or external state.

Standards sub-agent prompt — include:

• The full diff commands, new-file contents or paths, scope, and commit list.
• The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
• The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Spec sub-agent prompt — include:

• The same diff commands, new files, scope, and commit list as the Standards reviewer.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec.
• The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see Why two axes).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

• Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
• Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.