Code Review

---
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/spec 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".
upstream:
  repo: https://github.com/mattpocock/skills.git
  path: skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md
  commit: 84fdeff
local-patch:
  intent: "AI-agent failure-mode guards (friction scan, AI-generated anti-patterns, no-self-grading-downgrade) — added because Matt's upstream is written for human-driven coding agents, not AI agents."
  owner: auto-pi
---

Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:

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

Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you — tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.

## Process

### 1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.

### 2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
2. A path the user passed as an argument.
3. A PRD/spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".

### 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

Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.

**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:

- The full diff command 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 diff command and commit list.
- 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.

## Review depth checks

**Friction scan** (architectural signals — investigate these as candidates requiring proof of impact, not automatic severity):

- Understanding one concept requires reading >4 files across >2 directories → candidate for MEDIUM (fragmentation) — verify the fragmentation actually harms before flagging
- A module's public interface has more surface area than its implementation → candidate for MEDIUM (shallow module) — verify the shallowness matters before flagging
- Two modules share >3 direct cross-imports with no interface boundary → candidate for HIGH (coupling risk) — verify the coupling causes a real problem before flagging

**AI-generated anti-patterns** (common in LLM-written code — investigate as candidates requiring proof, not automatic findings):

- Defensive coding for impossible states (null checks on non-nullable values, internal boundaries) — verify the state is genuinely impossible before flagging
- Test mirrors implementation (tautological test — expected value recomputed via same logic) — verify the test is actually tautological before flagging
- State duplication (same state in 2+ places, manually synced) — verify the duplication causes a real sync risk before flagging
- Sequential awaits where `Promise.all` would do — **this is a candidate, not an automatic finding.** Sequential awaits may be justified by ordering requirements, rate limits, resource contention, transaction semantics, or fail-fast behavior. Verify `Promise.all` is actually safe (no ordering/rate-limit/contention/transaction/fail-fast constraint) before flagging as a latency multiplier.

**No self-grading downgrade:** An implementer's stated rationale ("left it per YAGNI", "intentional, see plan") is self-grading, not external evidence. It must NOT downgrade a finding's severity. If the rationale points at the plan rather than the code, that's a PLAN_DEFECT (route to planner), not a reason to soften the code finding.

## 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.