Code Reviewing

code-reviewing

You are reviewing a code diff on two independent axes:

• Standards — is the code well built? Judged against repo standards first, then the desplega:engineering-standards baseline.
• Spec — does it do the right thing? Judged against the strongest available statement of intent.

The axes are reviewed by separate parallel sub-agents and reported under separate headings, never merged or reranked. Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing must show as Standards-pass / Spec-fail — averaging the axes is how wrong-but-pretty code ships.

Findings are NEVER produced in the main session. The orchestrator wrote or supervised this code — it is biased toward believing the work is done and reading the diff as intended rather than as written. Both axes always run as fresh sub-agent contexts (route per desplega:delegate-work), even for small diffs, even when the session "already knows" the code. The orchestrator's job is the join afterwards: dedupe, verify findings against the code, discard false positives, deliver the verdict — it judges findings, it does not generate them.

Step 1: Pin the diff

Fix the review target explicitly — never review "recent changes" by vibes:

• Phase/step review: git diff <commit-before-phase>...HEAD (or the phase's commit range)
• Branch/PR review: git diff <base>...HEAD (three-dot: merge-base, so unrelated base movement doesn't pollute the diff)
• Uncommitted work: git diff + git diff --staged

State the pinned range in the report header.

Step 2: Find the spec source

In priority order, use the strongest statement of intent available:

1. The plan file (phase/step body + Success Criteria) — for desplega-driven implementations, including one-shot yolo plans
2. The originating issue/ticket/PR description
3. The user's request in this conversation
4. Ask via AskUserQuestion if none of the above pins intent

Additionally, always: if a design doc exists for the touched system (thoughts/*/design-docs/<system-slug>.md), it is a spec source on top of whichever ranked source applies, never a fallback — pass it to the Spec agent alongside the primary source. Its Invariants are spec, not style, and bind even when the plan doesn't restate them (see desplega:design-docs).

Step 3: Fan out two sub-agents (parallel, background)

Route per desplega:delegate-work: Sonnet for routine scope, Opus for complex, security-sensitive, or cross-cutting diffs (and for reviewing Codex sol output). Each agent gets the pinned diff range and ONLY its own axis — separate contexts are the point; neither sees the other's brief.

Standards agent prompt must include: the repo's documented standards (CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md excerpts, lint/style docs) with "repo overrides baseline"; the desplega:engineering-standards tests and smell table as the baseline; instruction to cite the failed test/smell by name with file:line.

Spec agent prompt must include: the spec source verbatim (or its path to read); instruction to check three failure classes — (a) requirements missing or only partially implemented, (b) behavior nobody asked for (scope creep), (c) requirements that look implemented but are wrong (edge cases, inverted conditions, unverified claims — read the code, don't trust names); plus verification: do the plan's automated checks actually cover the requirement, and do they pass?

Step 4: Aggregate — separately

## Code Review — <range>

### Standards
- [severity] file:line — finding (fails <test/smell name>)
...or: No standards findings.

### Spec
- [severity] requirement — finding (missing / scope creep / looks-done-but-wrong)
...or: Implements the spec as stated.

Severities: Critical (must fix before merge/phase close) / Important (should fix) / Minor (note it). The orchestrator judges the join: dedupe, discard false positives after reading the code yourself, then present. Sub-agent findings are advisory — the final verdict is never delegated (per desplega:delegate-work).

Step 5: Resolve

• In implementing/v-implementing flows: Critical findings block the phase/step from closing; fix and re-verify before commit. Important findings: fix or get explicit user deferral. Minor: note in the report.
• Standalone reviews: present both sections, offer to fix Critical/Important findings.
• In Autopilot: fix Critical + Important automatically, log Minor; never silently drop a Critical.

Notes

• This skill reviews code; desplega:reviewing reviews documents; desplega:verifying audits plan completeness after implementation. verifying answers "did we do everything the plan said"; the Spec axis here answers "is what we did actually right" — run both at final audit, they catch different failures.
• No slash command on purpose — Claude Code ships a built-in /code-review; this skill is invoked by name (desplega:code-reviewing) or automatically by the implementing skills.