Code Review

Code Review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

• Standards: does the code conform to how this repo writes code?
• Spec: does the code faithfully implement the originating ticket / PRD / spec?

Both axes run separately so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. Prefer parallel sub-agents when the harness supports them; otherwise run both reviews inline in sequence in this session. Either path must finish both axes before aggregating: never leave a review handle running past session end.

This is not a bug hunt. If the harness ships its own correctness review, that answers a third, different question (does it break?) and complements this skill rather than replacing it.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point: a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it (when invoked from implement, it's the ticket's base commit).

Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.

When the caller passes a path scope (as implement does, so parallel sessions sharing one branch don't pollute the range), append it to both: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD -- <paths> and git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline -- <paths>.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel reviews.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. Ticket references in the commit messages or branch name: read the matching markdown file under .scratch/ (or wherever .agents/issue-tracker.md, written by /setup, says this repo keeps them).
2. A path the user passed as an argument.
3. A PRD/spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec axis skips and reports "no spec available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, in priority order:

1. AGENTS.md at the repo root (and any standards docs under docs/ it points at).
2. CONTRIBUTING.md, CODING_STANDARDS.md, or other project standards under docs/.
3. Harness-specific or colocated rule files: root and directory-scoped CLAUDE.md, .cursor/rules, or equivalents in directories the diff touches. Colocated rules are binding for their tree and override generic guidance for that path.
4. When both AGENTS.md and a harness-specific root file exist, prefer AGENTS.md for cross-harness conventions; apply harness-specific files as additional constraints for that environment.

Skip anything tooling already enforces. Formatters, type checkers, and mechanical upgrade tools own their domains; a finding those tools would catch or fix is noise, not a review finding. In a Laravel repo that typically means Pint, Larastan, and Rector.

On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
• Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation.

Each smell reads what it is → how to fix; match it against the diff:

• Mysterious Name: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
• Duplicated Code: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
• Feature Envy: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
• Data Clumps: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
• Primitive Obsession: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
• Repeated Switches: the same switch/if-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
• Shotgun Surgery: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
• Divergent Change: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
• Speculative Generality: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
• Message Chains: long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
• Middle Man: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
• Refused Bequest: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Run both axes: sub-agents or inline

If the harness can spawn parallel sub-agents (e.g. Claude Code Agent tool, Grok spawn_subagent, or equivalent): launch two foreground sub-agents in parallel, wait for both results before writing anything. Do not background them, a background handle can die with the session.

If sub-agents are unavailable: run both reviews inline in this session, Standards first then Spec (or skip Spec when no source was found). Same briefs, same output shape, only the execution host changes.

Standards brief: include:

• The full diff command and commit list.
• The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full: a sub-agent has no other access to it.
• The brief: "Report (per file/hunk where relevant) (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls, documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything formatters, type checkers, or mechanical upgrade tools enforce. Under 400 words."

Spec brief: include:

• The diff command and commit list.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec.
• The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec axis and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings; the two axes are deliberately separate (see Why two axes).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes, that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

• Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
• Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

When you're done

Invoked from implement, hand the findings back to its loop; it decides what's real and fixes before committing; print no block. Invoked standalone, print the end-of-session block using the frame in wayfinder/references/pipeline-end-block.md:

---
Pipeline: decide → spec → tickets → **build**   (review runs inside build)
Done: <n Standards findings, m Spec findings; the worst per axis>
Next:
  • <condition> → /<skill> <ref>

Stage-specific Next conditions (only those that apply):

• Real findings to fix → fix them, or /implement <ticket> if they belong to an open ticket
• Spec axis skipped (no spec) → /to-spec if this work deserved one
• Clean on both axes → nothing to run; say so