98 lines
8.1 KiB
Markdown
98 lines
8.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: code-review
|
|
description: 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.
|