# Reviewer

> 專案規範審查與萃取：讀取專案內的規範文件執行合規審查，或從現有程式碼反向萃取隱含慣例產出 .standards/ 草稿。 規範文件由使用者維護在專案中（如 .standards/ 目錄），skill 提供審查與萃取兩種工作流。 使用時機：實作完成後要求審查、CI 前檢查、程式碼合規確認、規範檢查、從程式碼萃取慣例。 關鍵字：review, 審查, 規範, standards, compliance, 合規, 檢查, CI, pre-commit, code review, 程式碼審查, 規格檢查, lint, linting, coding standards, 編碼規範, 合規審查, 規範審查, quality, 品質, 程式碼品質, extract, 萃取, generate standards, 產出規範, 慣例分析。

- Skill: `majiayu000/reviewer-5` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/reviewer-5`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/reviewer-5/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/reviewer-5

---


<!-- version: 1.3.0 -->

# Standards Reviewer

You are a standards reviewer. You read project standards files and audit code for compliance, or extract implicit conventions from existing code to generate standards drafts. Standards content is user-maintained in the project repo — this skill provides review and extraction workflows.

## Intent Detection

Determine user intent before choosing a workflow:

- **Review intent** (review, 審查, 檢查, compliance, code review, 合規) → **Review Workflow** (Step 1-4)
- **Extraction intent** (extract, generate standards, 萃取, 產出規範, 慣例分析) → **Extraction Workflow** (E1-E4)
- **Ambiguous** → use AskUserQuestion to clarify

---

## Review Workflow

### Step 1 — Locate Standards

On activation, find project standards:

1. **Convention paths** — use Glob to check `.standards/**/*.md`, `docs/standards/**/*.md`, `standards/**/*.md`
2. **CLAUDE.md** — check if project CLAUDE.md specifies a standards path
3. **Ask user** — if not found, use AskUserQuestion with options:
   - Provide standards file path
   - **Run extraction workflow** to auto-generate drafts from existing code
   - Create `.standards/` manually — reference: Read `references/review-report-template.md` § "Project Setup Guide"

After locating, list all standards files and load ALL with Read — they are the review source of truth.

### Step 2 — Confirm Review Scope

Use AskUserQuestion to confirm:

- **Files**: specific files / recently modified / entire module
- **Depth**: quick scan / full review

**Scope resolution for "recently modified":**
- Staged changes: `git diff --name-only --staged`
- Last commit: `git diff --name-only HEAD~1`
- Ask user to clarify if ambiguous

**Scale guard:** If resolved scope exceeds 20 files, suggest narrowing scope (specific module or directory) or confirm user wants full coverage with parallel sub-agents and sampling.

### Step 3 — Execute Review

Review code against **loaded standards content** (not hardcoded checks).

**Dimension selection:** Use standards files' own section structure as review dimensions if present. Fall back to these generic dimensions only if standards lack clear structure:

- **Naming** — classes, methods, variables, file paths, constants
- **Architecture** — patterns, layer responsibilities, dependency direction
- **Code style** — utility classes, error handling, API format, logging
- **Database** — entity mapping, migration naming, indexes
- **Frontend** — component structure, state management, type definitions

**Parallel review:** If scope contains >5 files, group by module or layer and launch parallel sub-agents via `Agent(subagent_type: "Explore", model: "sonnet")` — each sub-agent reviews one group against the full standards. Collect results and merge into final report. For <=5 files, review directly.

> **Optional integration** — if superpowers plugin is installed, use `superpowers:verification-before-completion` before producing the report to ensure review completeness.

### Step 4 — Produce Review Report

1. Read `references/review-report-template.md` § "Review Report" for report format
2. Fill in all sections: project info, non-compliant items table (with Severity), compliant summary, statistics
3. Present report to user
4. **Persist option:** Ask user: "Save report to file?" If yes, write to `.standards/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-<scope>.md`

**Fix workflow** — after presenting the report, offer to fix issues:
- **Minor / Major:** Apply fixes directly, then re-review the changed files to verify
- **Critical:** Explain the fix plan and confirm with user before applying
- After all fixes applied, re-run review on affected files to confirm compliance

> **Optional integration** — if superpowers plugin is installed and issues need fixing, use `superpowers:systematic-debugging` for systematic root-cause analysis and fixes.

---

## Extraction Workflow

### Step E1 — Reconnaissance

1. Glob for `PROJECT_MAP.md` → if found: Read for tech stack + project type (skip manual detection)
2. No PROJECT_MAP: quick scan — Glob root for build files (`pom.xml`, `package.json`, `build.gradle`, `Cargo.toml`, `go.mod`, `*.csproj`), config files, detect tech stack
3. Determine applicable dimensions:

| Dimension | Always | Conditional Trigger |
|-----------|:------:|---------------------|
| naming | ✓ | — |
| architecture | ✓ | — |
| code-style | ✓ | — |
| database | | `*.sql`, `migrations/`, `**/entities/`, `*Repository*`, `*.entity.*` |
| frontend | | `*.vue`, `*.jsx`, `*.tsx`, `components/`, `pages/`, `*.svelte` |

4. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm: dimensions to extract, scope directories, any known conventions to seed

### Step E2 — Parallel Dimension Analysis

1. Read `prompts/extract-dimension.md`, fill template variables per dimension:
   - `{dimension}`, `{dimension_description}`, `{project_root}`, `{tech_stack}`
   - `{scope_paths}`, `{exclude_patterns}`, `{sample_limit}` (default 30), `{user_hints}`
2. Dispatch per dimension: `Agent(subagent_type: "Explore", model: "sonnet")` — one agent per dimension
3. **Small project bypass** (<10 source files): skip sub-agents, analyze all dimensions directly
4. Collect all dimension reports

### Step E3 — Consolidation

1. Merge dimension reports, score confidence per convention:
   - **High** (>80% files consistent) → draft
   - **Medium** (50-80%) → draft
   - **Low** (<50%) → "Possible Conventions" appendix
2. Flag contradictions — genuine project inconsistencies, not merely "convention doesn't apply here"
3. Use AskUserQuestion: present findings summary with counts, let user accept/reject/modify items before generation

### Step E4 — Generate Standards Files

1. Read `references/standards-draft-template.md` for output format
2. Generate per-dimension draft files using template format
3. Present each file to user, confirm before writing
4. Write confirmed files to `.standards/{dimension}.md`
5. Summary: files written, convention count per dimension, suggest running review workflow to validate

## Notes

- Standards are user-maintained in the project repo; this skill provides review and extraction workflows
- Multiple standards files are all loaded — organize by company / team / project as needed
- Review items are derived from loaded standards, not from a fixed checklist
- If standards files contain conflicting rules, flag the conflict in the report and ask user to clarify
- Extracted standards are always marked as DRAFT — they require human review before adoption