Code Review

Port provenance: adapted from the pinned upstream source at 984023ddac0d5e27624f2baacde6105e45de375f under MIT; see the repository parity ledger for the exact path and blob.

Phase 1: Load Target Files

Read the target file(s) in full. Read AGENTS.md for project coding standards.

Phase 2: Identify Engine Specialists

Read .ai-game-studio/project.json, section ## Engine Specialists. Note:

• The Primary specialist (used for architecture and broad engine concerns)
• The Language/Code Specialist (used when reviewing the project's primary language files)
• The Shader Specialist (used when reviewing shader files)
• The UI Specialist (used when reviewing UI code)

If the section reads [TO BE CONFIGURED], no engine is pinned — skip engine specialist steps.

Phase 3: ADR Compliance Check

Argument: $ai-game-studio:code-review [file(s)] may optionally include a story file path as the last argument (e.g., $ai-game-studio:code-review src/combat/attack.gd production/epics/combat/story-001.md). If a story path is provided, read it to extract the governing ADR reference.

Search for ADR references in, in priority order:

1. The story file (if provided as argument)
2. Header comments at the top of the implementation files
3. Commit messages referencing these files (git log --oneline -- [file])

Look for patterns like ADR-NNN or docs/architecture/ADR-.

If no ADR references found, note: "No ADR references found — ADR compliance check skipped. For full ADR compliance review, provide the story path: $ai-game-studio:code-review [files] [story-path]."

For each referenced ADR: read the file, extract the Decision and Consequences sections, then classify any deviation:

• ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION (BLOCKING): Uses a pattern explicitly rejected in the ADR
• ADR DRIFT (WARNING): Meaningfully diverges from the chosen approach without using a forbidden pattern
• MINOR DEVIATION (INFO): Small difference from ADR guidance that doesn't affect overall architecture

Phase 4: Standards Compliance

Identify the system category (engine, gameplay, AI, networking, UI, tools) and evaluate:

• Public methods and classes have doc comments
• Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
• No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
• Dependencies are injected (no static singletons for game state)
• Configuration values loaded from data files
• Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)

Phase 5: Architecture and SOLID

Architecture:

• Correct dependency direction (engine <- gameplay, not reverse)
• No circular dependencies between modules
• Proper layer separation (UI does not own game state)
• Events/signals used for cross-system communication
• Consistent with established patterns in the codebase

SOLID:

• Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change
• Open/Closed: Extendable without modification
• Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
• Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces
• Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions

Phase 6: Game-Specific Concerns

• Frame-rate independence (delta time usage)
• No allocations in hot paths (update loops)
• Proper null/empty state handling
• Thread safety where required
• Resource cleanup (no leaks)

Phase 7: Specialist Reviews (Parallel)

Spawn all applicable specialists simultaneously with a Codex subagent — do not wait for one before starting the next.

Engine Specialists

If an engine is configured, determine which specialist applies to each file and spawn in parallel:

• Primary language files (.gd, .cs, .cpp) → Language/Code Specialist
• Shader files (.gdshader, .hlsl, shader graph) → Shader Specialist
• UI screen/widget code → UI Specialist
• Cross-cutting or unclear → Primary Specialist

Also spawn the Primary Specialist for any file touching engine architecture (scene structure, node hierarchy, lifecycle hooks).

QA Testability Review

For Logic and Integration stories, also spawn qa-tester with a Codex subagent in parallel with the engine specialists. Pass:

• The implementation files being reviewed
• The story's ## QA Test Cases section (the pre-written test specs from qa-lead)
• The story's ## Acceptance Criteria

Ask the qa-tester to evaluate:

• Are all test hooks and interfaces exposed (not hidden behind private/internal access)?
• Do the QA test cases from the story's ## QA Test Cases section map to testable code paths?
• Are any acceptance criteria untestable as implemented (e.g., hardcoded values, no seam for injection)?
• Does the implementation introduce any new edge cases not covered by the existing QA test cases?
• Are there any observable side effects that should have a test but don't?

For Visual/Feel and UI stories: qa-tester reviews whether the manual verification steps in ## QA Test Cases are achievable with the implementation as written — e.g., "is the state the manual checker needs to reach actually reachable?"

Collect all specialist findings before producing output.

Phase 8: Output Review

## Code Review: [File/System Name]

### Engine Specialist Findings: [N/A — no engine configured / CLEAN / ISSUES FOUND]
[Findings from engine specialist(s), or "No engine configured." if skipped]

### Testability: [N/A — Visual/Feel or Config story / TESTABLE / GAPS / BLOCKING]
[qa-tester findings: test hooks, coverage gaps, untestable paths, new edge cases]
[If BLOCKING: implementation must expose [X] before tests in ## QA Test Cases can run]

### ADR Compliance: [NO ADRS FOUND / COMPLIANT / DRIFT / VIOLATION]
[List each ADR checked, result, and any deviations with severity]

### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
[List failures with line references]

### Architecture: [CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
[List specific architectural concerns]

### SOLID: [COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND]
[List specific violations]

### Game-Specific Concerns
[List game development specific issues]

### Positive Observations
[What is done well -- always include this section]

### Required Changes
[Must-fix items before approval — ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATIONs always appear here]

### Suggestions
[Nice-to-have improvements]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]

This skill is read-only — no files are written.

Phase 9: Next Steps

Use the available user-input mechanism:

• Prompt: "Code review complete — verdict: [APPROVED / CHANGES REQUIRED / MAJOR REVISION]. How would you like to proceed?"
• Options (adjust based on verdict):
  • If APPROVED:
    • [A] Run $ai-game-studio:story-done to mark the story complete
    • [B] Stop here
  • If CHANGES REQUIRED or MAJOR REVISION:
    • [A] Fix the issues and re-run $ai-game-studio:code-review
    • [B] Run $ai-game-studio:story-done anyway with noted exceptions
    • [C] Stop here

If an ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION is found:

• If the violation contradicts an existing ADR: fix the implementation to comply with docs/architecture/[adr-file].md. If the design has legitimately changed, run $ai-game-studio:architecture-decision to formally revise the existing ADR — do not create a competing one.
• If no ADR exists for the pattern that was violated: run $ai-game-studio:architecture-decision to document the correct approach before fixing the code.

Codex portability

Use the search, file-editing, shell, user-input, and subagent capabilities available in the active Codex surface. Use PowerShell syntax on Windows and POSIX syntax on macOS/Linux; do not require a Unix compatibility layer on Windows. Inherit the active model and permission mode, and do not weaken approval or sandbox boundaries.