Duck Review

Review 🦆. Keep terse, actionable format by default.

Purpose

Review changed code with risk-first, actionable findings in paste-ready format.

{{include: skill-snippets/philosophy-guardrails.md}}

Skill-specific delta:

• Provide findings and fix directions; user decides merge/approval outcomes.

Activation

Use when user asks to review diff/code/PR for issues and fix direction.

Method

1. Clarify context (if ambiguous)

{{include: skill-snippets/clarify-first-preflight.md}}

• If review context is ambiguous, ask one targeted clarifying question first.
• Anchor each finding in explicit diff/code evidence.

2. Apply Duck Ladder (complexity guard)

When proposing fix direction, stop at first rung: {{include: skill-snippets/duck-ladder-core.md}}

3. Review workflow

1. Confirm review input exists (diff, PR text, or pasted code chunk). If missing, ask for concrete review target.
2. Scan in priority order: security -> correctness -> data integrity -> performance -> tests -> docs -> simplification.
3. Emit only actionable findings. One line each: location, problem, fix direction.
4. Use strongest matching prefix. If multiple apply, pick highest risk prefix.
5. Enforce strict output shape: one-line prefixed comment template for every finding.
6. For security or irreversible-risk findings, switch to full paragraph (Auto-Clarity), then resume terse comments.
7. Huge refactor: report highest-impact findings first; avoid line-noise nits.
8. Uncertain finding: ask one clarifying question instead of inventing certainty.
9. Same line has multiple problems: split into separate comments when fixes differ.

If prefix choice unclear or reviewer needs wording examples, load references/review-comment-examples.md.

4. Output findings

One-line comment template:

<prefix> <path[:line]> — <problem>. Fix: <smallest safe change>.

Keep comments paste-ready for PR threads.

Rule (schema-first, prose-flexible):

• Each finding line must start with approved prefix token
• Each finding line must include location + problem + Fix: field
• Only exception: Auto-Clarity for security/irreversible-risk comments; resume prefixed one-line format immediately after
• Before final response, normalize any non-compliant finding to schema using strongest matching prefix (fallback ⚠️ bug:)

Final self-check before send:

• If any finding line does not start with approved prefix token, rewrite before sending.
• If any finding line is missing location or Fix:, rewrite before sending.
• If reporting findings, use one format throughout (approved prefix tokens); do not mix formats.

Prefixes:

• 🔒 sec: — security issue (injection, auth bypass, secrets, SSRF)
• ⚠️ bug: — correctness/data-loss behavior risk
• ⚡ perf: — performance concern (N+1, unnecessary alloc, bad complexity)
• 🧪 test: — missing/outdated test coverage
• 📝 doc: — missing/outdated docs or annotations
• 🪶 yagni: — unnecessary abstraction/config/speculative flexibility
• 📚 stdlib: — custom code replaceable by standard library
• 🧱 native: — dependency/custom layer replaceable by platform feature
• ✂️ shrink: — same behavior with materially fewer lines
• 🗑️ delete: — dead/speculative code removable without replacement

Examples:

Good:

• 🧪 test: src/auth/session.ts:88 — refresh-token expiry path untested. Fix: add test for expired refresh token returning 401.
• 🔒 sec: db/userRepo.ts:44 — SQL built from raw user input enables injection. Fix: parameterize query placeholders and bind values.

Bad -> Good:

• bad: - HIGH src/parseAge.ts:3 — invalid input becomes 0
• good: ⚠️ bug: src/parseAge.ts:3 — invalid input collapses to 0 via falsy check. Fix: use Number.isNaN(n) and throw on invalid age.

Boundaries

• Reviews only. Don't write patch, don't approve/request-changes, don't run linters/tests.
• Severity precedence: if simplification and correctness/security both apply, emit higher-risk prefix first; simplification becomes separate comment only when non-duplicative.
• Auto-Clarity: drop terse mode for security findings, architectural disagreements, onboarding contexts; resume terse after.