Code Review

Code Review

This skill reviews code changes in the current git repository with a fresh context.

Instructions

When this skill is invoked:

1. Verify git repository: Confirm the current directory is a git repository.

2. Present diff options menu: Ask the user to select one of these options:

   Select diff type to review:
   
   1. Unstaged changes (working directory vs staged/HEAD)
   2. Branch changes against local master/main
   3. Branch changes against remote origin/master or origin/main
   

3. Get the diff based on selection:

   • Option 1 - Unstaged changes:

     git diff
     

     If empty, also check staged changes:

     git diff --cached
     

   • Option 2 - Branch vs local master/main:

     # Detect default branch
     git rev-parse --verify main 2>/dev/null && DEFAULT=main || DEFAULT=master
     git diff $DEFAULT...HEAD
     

   • Option 3 - Branch vs remote master/main:

     # Fetch latest
     git fetch origin
     # Detect default branch
     git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null && DEFAULT=origin/main || DEFAULT=origin/master
     git diff $DEFAULT...HEAD
     

4. Also gather context:

   # List changed files
   git diff --name-only [appropriate args based on selection]
   
   # Check for new dependencies
   git diff [appropriate args] -- package.json Cargo.toml requirements.txt go.mod pom.xml build.gradle Gemfile pyproject.toml
   
   # Check for test files in changes
   git diff --name-only [appropriate args] | grep -E "(test|spec|_test\.|\.test\.)"
   

5. Perform the review analyzing the diff for:

   Simplification Opportunities

   • Overly complex functions (high cyclomatic complexity)
   • Nested conditionals that could be flattened
   • Repeated code patterns that could be abstracted
   • Functions doing too many things (violating single responsibility)
   • Complex state management that could be simplified

   Untested Domain Logic

   • New business logic without corresponding tests
   • Modified logic paths without test coverage
   • Edge cases that should have tests
   • Error handling paths without tests

   Documentation Gaps

   • New public APIs without documentation
   • Changed behavior not reflected in README
   • New configuration options undocumented
   • Breaking changes not called out
   • New features missing from docs

   New Dependencies

   • List any new packages/libraries added
   • Note the purpose of each new dependency
   • Flag if a dependency seems unnecessary or duplicative
   • Warn about dependencies with known issues or that are unmaintained

6. Format the review as:

   # Code Review Summary
   
   **Diff type**: [selected option]
   **Files changed**: [count]
   **Insertions/Deletions**: +X / -Y
   
   ## 🔧 Simplification Opportunities
   
   [List findings or "None identified"]
   
   ## 🧪 Untested Domain Logic
   
   [List findings or "All new logic appears tested"]
   
   ## 📚 Documentation Updates Needed
   
   [List findings or "Documentation appears up to date"]
   
   ## 📦 New Dependencies
   
   [List new deps with notes, or "No new dependencies"]
   
   ## General Observations
   
   [Any other noteworthy items]
   

Notes

• If the diff is very large, focus on the most significant changes
• For binary files, just note they were changed
• Be constructive in feedback, not just critical
• Prioritize findings by impact

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.