# Nv Park And Review > Commit local changes as a baseline, hop into a lightweight review worktree, run a thermo-nuclear code quality review scoped to ONLY that commit, commit the resulting refactor as a separate follow-up commit, then land it back and tear the worktree down. Use when the user asks to review their local/uncommitted changes for AI slop and redundant code, or invokes nv-park-and-review. - Skill: `novuhq/nv-park-and-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add novuhq/nv-park-and-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/novuhq/nv-park-and-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: novuhq (https://skillmd.com/u/novuhq) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/novuhq/nv-park-and-review --- # Park and Review (commit → worktree → nuclear review → refactor commit) Snapshot the current work as a baseline commit, immediately exit to a throwaway review worktree, audit **only that commit** with the thermo-nuclear code quality review, then land the cleanup as its own follow-up commit. Keeps the feature diff and the review-driven refactor separately reviewable, and frees the main checkout the moment the baseline is committed. Invoking this skill authorizes the two commits it creates (steps 1 and 4). Do not amend or squash the baseline commit. ## Workflow ``` - [ ] 1. Baseline commit (the work to review) - [ ] 2. Exit to a review worktree (one command) - [ ] 3. Thermo-nuclear review scoped to that commit only - [ ] 4. Triage + fix, then a separate refactor commit - [ ] 5. Land back on the original branch + teardown ``` ### 1. Baseline commit - Inspect first (parallel): `git status`, `git diff` (staged + unstaged), `git log --oneline -15` for message style. - Stage the cohesive change only: if the user already staged files, commit those; otherwise stage the related modified files. Exclude unrelated local edits. - Commit with the repo's conventional style — `type(scope): concise why` (scopes: `dashboard`, `api-service`, `worker`, `shared`, …). Use a HEREDOC for the message. - `lint-staged` + `biome check --write` run on commit and may auto-format staged files; the commit still succeeds. If a hook *fails*, fix and make a new commit (never `--amend`). - Capture the baseline SHA immediately after committing — this is the ONLY review target: ```bash git rev-parse HEAD # BASE_SHA ``` ### 2. Exit to a review worktree — immediately after the commit Move the rest of the workflow (review, triage edits, refactor commit) out of the main checkout so it is free for other work. Do **not** use `nv-worktree-create` here — a single lightweight command is enough; no env copying, install, or build is needed for a review pass: ```bash git worktree add -b review/- ../review- ``` - From here on, run every command and file edit inside the worktree path — never touch the main checkout until step 5. - Abort and fall back to reviewing in place if the worktree path already exists. ### 3. Thermo-nuclear review — scoped to BASE_SHA only Gather the exact scope, then launch **one** `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review` subagent (Task tool, `readonly: true`, foreground so you can act on results): ```bash git show --stat # changed file list git show # committed diff to paste into the prompt ``` Subagent prompt template: ~~~ Perform a thermo-nuclear code quality review scoped STRICTLY to a single commit. Load and apply the rubric from the `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review` skill. SCOPE (critical): Review ONLY the lines changed in commit . You may READ full files for context, but every finding MUST point at a line introduced/modified by this commit. Do not report on pre-existing code or the wider branch. Full Repository Path: Commit under review: "" Changed files (read full current contents for context): - - ... The committed diff: ```diff ` diff> ``` Focus on: AI slop, redundant/dead code, duplicated logic, unnecessary abstractions or props, inverted/confusing boolean naming, and state-management smells (redundant state vs derived values, effect misuse, stale-closure/dep-array issues). For every finding give: file, specific symbol/line from this commit, severity, WHY it's a problem, and a concrete minimal fix. Separate must-fix from optional. Skip nitpicks that don't affect correctness or maintainability. Do NOT modify files — return findings only. ~~~ ### 4. Triage, fix, and refactor commit — in the worktree - **Verify before deleting**: confirm each dead-code/redundancy claim with `Grep` (call sites, setters, other callers) — do not trust the review blindly. - Apply **must-fix** and high-value findings as **behavior-preserving** edits. Defer intentional or low-value findings and state the reason to the user. - Don't expand scope or add features during triage. - After edits: `ReadLints` on every touched file; `Grep` for stale identifiers after any rename. Only fix pre-existing lints if necessary. - Stage only the triage-touched files and make a **new** commit (never amend BASE_SHA): ```bash git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF' refactor(): EOF )" ``` - Confirm the history: `git log --oneline -3` shows BASE_SHA then the refactor commit. ### 5. Land back on the original branch + teardown From the **main checkout**, fast-forward the original branch onto the review branch, then remove the worktree — plain commands, no cleanup skill needed: ```bash git merge --ff-only review/- git worktree remove ../review- git branch -d review/- ``` If `--ff-only` fails, the original branch moved while you were reviewing — do not force anything; report the divergence and leave the review branch in place for the user to reconcile. ## Guardrails - Keep the commits separate: baseline (step 1) and, when refactors are applied, the refactor (step 4). Never squash them or `--amend` the baseline. - The review targets the single baseline commit only — never the whole branch. - If the review surfaces nothing worth fixing, skip step 4, and in step 5 just remove the worktree and branch (nothing to merge) and report a clean result. - Do not push or open a PR unless the user asks. ## Related skills - `thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review` — the audit rubric used in step 3 - `deslop` — remove AI slop from a diff - [nv-worktree-commands](../nv-worktree-commands/SKILL.md) — worktree command reference if the lightweight setup needs debugging - [novu-prepare-pr](../novu-prepare-pr/SKILL.md) — full post-implementation PR prep