Aif Review

Code Review Assistant

Perform thorough code reviews focusing on correctness, security, performance, and maintainability.

Step 0: Load Config

FIRST: Read .ai-factory/config.yaml if it exists to resolve:

• Paths: paths.description, paths.architecture, paths.rules_file, paths.roadmap, and paths.rules
• Language: language.ui for review summary language
• Git: git.base_branch for branch comparison guidance

If config.yaml doesn't exist, use defaults:

• Paths: .ai-factory/ for all artifacts
• Language: en (English)
• Git: base_branch: main

Behavior

Argument flags

Before routing the argument string into one of the modes below, extract any standalone tokens that flag optional behavior. Strip them from the argument string and route the remainder normally.

• +check — runs the optional findings validator after the review is produced. The full procedure (when to run, failure modes, output additions, gate-result recomputation) lives in references/CHECK-MODE.md. Default is OFF; the validator runs only when this token is present. The token may appear before or after the main argument (e.g. /aif-review +check, /aif-review 123 +check, /aif-review main +check).

If the leftover argument string is empty, fall back to the empty-argument mode (staged review). Unknown +-prefixed tokens are passed through as part of the main argument so they are not silently consumed.

Edge case: a git ref literally named +check will be consumed by the flag stripper — acceptable compromise.

Without Arguments (Review Staged Changes)

1. Run git diff --cached to get staged changes
2. If nothing staged, run git diff for unstaged changes
3. Analyze each file's changes

With PR Number/URL

1. Use gh pr view <number> --json to get PR details
2. Use gh pr diff <number> to get the diff
3. Review all changes in the PR

With Git Ref (Commits Mode)

Argument routing chain:

1. Empty → staged review (see above)
2. Digits or #N → PR mode (see above)
3. Everything else → validate via git rev-parse --verify → commits mode or ask user

Validation:

git rev-parse --verify <argument> 2>/dev/null

• Valid ref → enter commits mode (steps below)

• Invalid ref → do NOT fall back to staged review silently. Ask the user to clarify:

  AskUserQuestion: `<argument>` is not a valid git ref. What did you mean?
  
  Options:
  1. Review staged changes instead
  2. Cancel
  

  Based on choice:

  • "Review staged changes" → run staged review (default mode)
  • "Cancel" → inform the user that review was cancelled → STOP
  • "Other" → user provides corrected ref → re-validate via rev-parse

Edge case: a branch with a purely numeric name (e.g. 123) will be interpreted as a PR number — acceptable compromise.

Steps:

1. Get commit list between the ref and HEAD:

   git log --oneline --reverse <ref>..HEAD
   

   If no commits found (HEAD is at or behind <ref>), inform the user and stop.

2. Check commit count: If more than 20 commits, ask the user before proceeding:

   AskUserQuestion: Found <N> commits to review. Reviewing all of them will be slow and consume significant context. How to proceed?
   
   Options:
   1. Review all <N> commits
   2. Review only the last 20
   3. Cancel
   

   Based on choice:

   • "Review all" → continue with the full commit list
   • "Review only the last 20" → truncate the list to the 20 most recent commits (keep chronological order)
   • "Cancel" → inform the user that review was cancelled → STOP

3. Review each commit:

   git show <commit-hash> --stat
   git show <commit-hash>
   

   For each commit check:

   • Does the commit message match the actual changes?
   • Are changes atomic (single logical unit per commit)?
   • Are there any issues introduced in this specific commit?

4. Provide combined summary with per-commit notes

Context Gates (Read-Only)

Before finalizing review findings, run read-only context gates:

• Check the resolved architecture artifact (if present) for boundary/dependency alignment issues.
• Check the resolved RULES.md artifact (if present) for explicit convention violations.
• Check the resolved roadmap artifact (if present) for milestone alignment and mention missing linkage for likely feat/fix/perf work.

Human gate result severity:

• WARN for non-blocking inconsistencies or missing optional files.
• ERROR only for explicit blocking criteria requested by the user/review policy.

If the user wants a standalone rules-only pass, suggest /aif-rules-check. Keep human /aif-review gate labels at WARN / ERROR, then append the standard machine-readable gate result with pass|warn|fail status.

Machine-readable gate result

This section is the single owner of aif-gate-result computation:

• Append one final fenced aif-gate-result JSON block after the human-readable review.
• Use "gate": "review".
• "status": "pass|warn|fail" — the more severe (fail > warn > pass) of two independent inputs:
  • findings input — fail when any "Critical Issues" item remains (critical correctness, security, data-loss, performance, downstream regression — see references/SEVERITY.md for the authoritative critical/suggestion definitions); warn when only "Suggestions", missing optional context, or review uncertainty remain; pass when nothing material remains.
  • context-gate input — fail for a blocking (ERROR) gate finding; warn for a non-blocking (WARN) one; pass when none.
  • A failing context gate keeps "status" at fail even with zero Critical Issues — a clean findings list must never mask a failed gate.
• "blocking": true|false — true only when "status" is fail.
• "blockers" — merge-blocking findings only: every "Critical Issues" item and every blocking context-gate finding, nothing else.
• "affected_files" — reviewed or implicated paths.
• "suggested_next.command" follows "status": fail → /aif-fix by default, but if every blocker came from a single context gate point at that gate's command instead (rules gate → /aif-rules, architecture gate → /aif-architecture, roadmap gate → /aif-roadmap); warn/pass → /aif-commit; null only when no command fits.

/aif-review is read-only for context artifacts by default. Do not modify context files unless user explicitly asks.

Project Context

Read .ai-factory/skill-context/aif-review/SKILL.md — MANDATORY if the file exists.

This file contains project-specific rules accumulated by /aif-evolve from patches, codebase conventions, and tech-stack analysis. These rules are tailored to the current project.

How to apply skill-context rules:

• Treat them as project-level overrides for this skill's general instructions
• When a skill-context rule conflicts with a general rule written in this SKILL.md, the skill-context rule wins (more specific context takes priority — same principle as nested CLAUDE.md files)
• When there is no conflict, apply both: general rules from SKILL.md + project rules from skill-context
• Do NOT ignore skill-context rules even if they seem to contradict this skill's defaults — they exist because the project's experience proved the default insufficient
• CRITICAL: skill-context rules apply to ALL outputs of this skill — including the review summary format and the checklist criteria. If a skill-context rule says "review MUST check X" or "summary MUST include section Y" — you MUST augment the output accordingly. Producing a review that ignores skill-context rules is a bug.

Enforcement: After generating any output artifact, verify it against all skill-context rules. If any rule is violated — fix the output before presenting it to the user.

Review Checklist

Correctness

• Logic errors or bugs
• Edge cases handling
• Null/undefined checks
• Error handling completeness
• Type safety (if applicable)

Security

• SQL injection vulnerabilities
• XSS vulnerabilities
• Command injection
• Sensitive data exposure
• Authentication/authorization issues
• CSRF protection
• Input validation

Performance

• N+1 query problems
• Unnecessary re-renders (React)
• Memory leaks
• Inefficient algorithms
• Missing indexes (database)
• Large payload sizes

Best Practices

• Code duplication
• Dead code
• Magic numbers/strings
• Proper naming conventions
• SOLID principles
• DRY principle

Testing

• Test coverage for new code
• Edge cases tested
• Mocking appropriateness

Output Format

## Code Review Summary

**Files Reviewed:** [count]
**Risk Level:** 🟢 Low / 🟡 Medium / 🔴 High

### Context Gates
[Architecture / Rules / Roadmap gate results with WARN/ERROR labels]

### Critical Issues
[Each item is a short paragraph in prose, not a labeled record. Order inside the paragraph:
1. Behavioral impact — what breaks for the user or downstream code.
2. Optional note — a code citation, a consequence, or extra context. Include only if it adds signal; skip otherwise.
3. Path — file:line of the affected location (or the closest anchor).
4. Suggested fix — concrete edit that addresses the behavior above.

Example:
> Two clients buying the last item both get a confirmation and stock goes negative — the order creation and stock reservation run in separate transactions. `src/services/order.ts:42`. Wrap `OrderService.create` and `InventoryService.reserve` in a shared transaction so the second buyer fails fast with "out of stock".]

### Suggestions
[Same item shape as Critical Issues. The behavioral impact describes a non-blocking improvement (clarity, performance budget, missing log), not a bug.]

### Questions
[Free-form clarifications. Path optional, fix optional — these are open questions for the author, not findings.]

### Positive Notes
[Free-form acknowledgements of good patterns. No path/fix required.]

When +check reclassifies an item, a short [+check: …] suffix is appended to the item text; see references/CHECK-MODE.md for the exact wording.

Append the final machine-readable result after the markdown summary:

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "gate": "review",
  "status": "pass",
  "blocking": false,
  "blockers": [],
  "affected_files": [],
  "suggested_next": {
    "command": "/aif-commit",
    "reason": "Review found no blocking issues."
  }
}

When the +check flag is set, the aif-gate-result block is assembled after validator filtering — status, blockers, affected_files, and suggested_next are recomputed accordingly. Exception: the whole-dispatch failure path keeps the unfiltered original list and does NOT recompute these fields. See references/CHECK-MODE.md for the full procedure.

Review Style

• Be constructive, not critical
• Explain the "why" behind suggestions
• Provide code examples when helpful
• Acknowledge good code
• Prioritize feedback by importance
• Ask questions instead of making assumptions

Examples

User: /aif-review Review staged changes in current repository.

User: /aif-review 123 Review PR #123 using GitHub CLI.

User: /aif-review https://github.com/org/repo/pull/123 Review PR from URL.

User: /aif-review 2.x Review all commits on the current branch compared to branch 2.x.

User: /aif-review main Review all commits on the current branch compared to main (or to whatever branch is configured as git.base_branch in this repository).

User: /aif-review v1.0.0 Review all commits on the current branch compared to tag v1.0.0.

User: /aif-review +check Review staged changes, then run the +check validator over Critical Issues and Suggestions before rendering. The validator can drop invented items, rewrite partially-correct ones, and reclassify items between the two severity levels (promote a suggestion to critical or demote a critical to suggestion — see references/SEVERITY.md for the rules). It adds a filtering-summary line and rebuilds the gate result from the surviving findings; see references/CHECK-MODE.md for the exact line format.

User: /aif-review 123 +check Review PR #123 with +check validation enabled.

Integration

If GitHub MCP is configured, can:

• Post review comments directly to PR
• Request changes or approve
• Add labels based on review outcome

Tip: Context is heavy after code review. Consider /clear or /compact before continuing with other tasks.