Pr Antipattern Review

PR Anti-pattern Review

Review a diff by comparing it against the project's slice catalog. Find deviations from declared slices and universal anti-patterns. Output a review with path:line references suitable for pasting as PR comments.

This skill is comparative, not encyclopedic. It compares the diff against BLUEPRINT.md rather than running a generic checklist.

Output is ephemeral by default. Findings go to chat. Save to a file only if the user asks.

Core principles

1. Blueprint is the rulebook. If the project has a BLUEPRINT.md, that determines what's right vs wrong. Findings without a blueprint anchor are weaker (suggestions, not violations).
2. Slices are the unit of comparison. The question isn't "does this PR violate generic principles" but "does this PR follow the slice it's working in".
3. Human-in-the-loop on judgment calls. Don't decide severity in ambiguous cases. Don't classify deviations as deliberate vs accidental — ask.
4. Boy scout rule. Pre-existing problems in touched files are not held against the PR unless it makes them worse.
5. Output is ephemeral. Findings emitted to chat. Never auto-write a file. Never auto-commit.

Workflow

Step 1 — Detect the input format

Route based on what the user provided:

If ambiguous, check git status and git log -1 first.

Step 2 — Identify which project(s) the diff touches

For each file in the diff:

• Match its path against the projects in the repo
• Group changes by project

⏸ Stop-and-ask checkpoint 1 (only if diff spans multiple projects):

"This diff touches projects A and B. Review both, only A, only B, or treat as a single cross-project change?"

If diff stays within one project: no checkpoint, proceed.

Step 3 — Load the blueprint(s)

For each touched project, look for BLUEPRINT.md at:

• docs/architecture/<project>/BLUEPRINT.md (monorepo convention)
• docs/architecture/BLUEPRINT.md (single-project convention)
• docs/BLUEPRINT.md

If a monorepo has docs/architecture/SYSTEM_MAP.md, load it too — needed when the diff includes cross-project boundary changes.

If no blueprint found:

• Tell the user: "No BLUEPRINT.md found for project X. Running with universal checks only — findings are weaker and may miss project-specific conventions. Want me to suggest running project-blueprint first?"
• Continue with reduced confidence

Step 4 — Parse the diff

For each changed file:

• Status: added / modified / deleted / renamed
• Hunks with + and - lines
• New imports (high signal for layering)
• New file paths (high signal for slice/non-slice)
• Net line change and public API delta

Step 5 — Classify each change against slices

For each file in the diff:

1. Locate the slice it belongs to based on its path and shape
2. If unclear which slice, ⏸ ask:

   "File X doesn't clearly fit slice Y or Z. Which slice does this belong to, or is it a new slice?"

3. Apply the slice's declared constraints against the file's new contents:
   • Imports match what the slice allows?
   • Naming matches the slice convention?
   • Framework/library matches the canonical?
   • Co-created files present (test, DI registration, etc.)?
4. Check status of the slice:
   • frozen — flag new instances as regression
   • deprecated — flag any addition
   • active — normal comparison
5. Check for variants:
   • Instance matches an existing variant → fine, document
   • Instance is a new variant → ⏸ ask if deliberate (decision spec needed) or accidental

Step 6 — Apply universal checks

Independent of any blueprint:

• Secrets introduced in committed files
• Manifest-level dependency inversion (a .csproj / package.json gains a reference that reverses the architectural arrow)
• Security regression (auth removed, validation removed, CORS opened)
• Test removed without explanation
• Catch-and-swallow exception introduced
• Type-checker silencing without justification

See references/universal-checks.md for the full list with detection commands.

Step 7 — Boy scout filter

For each finding, check whether the problem existed before this PR in the same file:

• If yes and the PR doesn't worsen it → demote to "pre-existing context" (mention once, don't count against PR)
• If yes and the PR worsens it (e.g., adds the 26th method to a god service) → count against PR

Pre-existing problems that the PR happens to touch but doesn't worsen are not findings.

Step 8 — Classify severity

When ambiguous between blocker and should-fix, ⏸ ask:

"This finding [description] could be blocker or should-fix depending on context. The PR has [context]. How do you want it classified?"

Don't decide unilaterally on severity for things that could go either way.

Step 9 — Compute verdict

Step 10 — Pre-submit summary

Before emitting the final review:

⏸ Stop-and-ask checkpoint 2 (only when posting, saving, or when severity/classification is ambiguous):

"Findings: N blockers, M should-fix, K nits. Verdict: [X]. Confirm or want to adjust any classification before I write the review?"

This is the last chance to catch a miscall before the output goes out.

Step 11 — Emit review

Emit the review to chat using assets/review-template.md. Findings are formatted with path:line so the user can paste them as PR comments.

Then offer:

"Want me to save this as a markdown file? Otherwise it stays in chat history."

Save to file only on explicit yes. Default is chat-only.

Stop-and-ask checkpoints summary

Additional pauses if anything unexpected — never invent decisions.

What the agent observes vs what the human decides

The agent observes:

• Which slice a file belongs to (from path + shape)
• Whether the file matches the slice's canonical shape
• Whether imports respect the layer/slice constraints
• Whether tests are present
• Manifest-level dependency changes
• Greppable anti-patterns (secrets, env-var sprinkles, catch-and-swallow)

Human decides:

• Whether a new variant is deliberate or accidental
• Severity when contested (security regression intentional? legacy workaround?)
• Whether to count pre-existing problems against this PR
• Whether to save the review as a file

What this skill does NOT do

• Generate the blueprint (use project-blueprint)
• Auto-commit anything
• Auto-write files unless the user explicitly asks
• Apply generic anti-pattern catalogs as if they were project rules
• Ignore the blueprint if one exists

When no blueprint exists

Without BLUEPRINT.md, the skill falls back to universal checks only:

• Secrets, manifest inversion, security regression, removed tests, type-checker silencing, catch-and-swallow

Output explicitly notes: "No project blueprint found — review is based on universal checks only. Findings may miss project-specific conventions. Run project-blueprint to enable slice-based comparison."

See also

• references/slice-comparison.md — how to check a diff against a slice catalog
• references/universal-checks.md — project-independent observations
• references/diff-checks.md — greppable patterns useful regardless of project
• assets/review-template.md — output format