Code Review

Code Review

Review the diff between HEAD and a fixed point along two independent axes:

• Standards: does the change follow documented repository standards and the smell baseline below?
• Spec: does the change faithfully implement its originating local spec or tracker ticket?

Run the axes in parallel and preserve the separation when reporting results.

Resolve every .agents/projects/ path from the repository root; never read or write project artifacts in a global agent-installation directory.

Process

1. Determine the fixed point from the user or the invoking implementation workflow. Validate it resolves, capture git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD, list its commits, and stop if the diff is empty.

   Done when a non-empty, merge-base diff is available.

2. Identify the active project and its source specification in this order: an issue reference in the commits, a supplied reference, .agents/projects/<project>/spec.md, then a matching project artifact. Fetch the full tracker body and comments when needed. If no spec exists, mark the Spec axis unavailable rather than inventing one.

   Done when the review has a spec source or an explicit no-spec status.

3. Identify repository standards in existing guidance such as AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and coding-standard documents. Apply those before the smell baseline. The baseline is heuristic only and never overrides a documented repository decision or tooling that already enforces the rule.

   Baseline: mysterious names, duplicated code, feature envy, data clumps, primitive obsession, repeated switches, shotgun surgery, divergent change, speculative generality, message chains, middle man, and refused bequest.

   Done when standards sources and applicable heuristics are available to the review.

4. Launch two independent reviews in parallel:

   • Standards: report documented-standard violations with the source rule and file/hunk, then possible baseline smells with quoted evidence. Separate hard violations from judgement calls.
   • Spec: report missing or partial requirements, scope creep, and apparently implemented but incorrect behavior. Cite the relevant spec requirement.

   Done when each axis returns a concise, evidence-based report, or the Spec axis explicitly reports that no spec is available.

5. Write .agents/projects/<project>/review.md with ## Standards and ## Spec sections. Do not merge or rerank their findings. End with the number of findings and worst issue within each axis. If a tracker comment is needed, append Written by Cursor; do not add that line to the local review document.

   Done when the project has a two-axis review report and the user can distinguish standards findings from specification findings.