Code Review

Code Review

Review code specified by $ARGUMENTS, using the project's code review policies.

Step 1: Figure Out What to Review

The user's $ARGUMENTS could be anything. Interpret them:

If you're unsure what the user means, ask before launching reviewers.

Step 2: Discover and Launch Reviewers

1. Use Glob to find all .claude/code-review/*.md files.

2. Read .claude/code-review/standards.md (master standards shared by all reviewers).

3. For EACH policy file except standards.md, launch a general-purpose Task agent (use model sonnet). Give each agent a prompt constructed from this template — adapt it based on what you're reviewing:

   You are reviewing Rust code in the ragu project (a recursive proof system / proof-carrying data framework).

   Read these files:

   • .claude/code-review/standards.md (master standards that always apply)
   • .claude/code-review/{focus}.md (your specific review policy) {if focus is "documentation", also include:}

     • .claude/review-shared/writing.md (shared writing rules)
     • .claude/review-shared/math.md (shared math rules)
     • .claude/review-shared/surface-placement.md (book vs. rustdoc placement rules)

     What to review: {describe the specific content — file paths, line ranges, the diff, whatever the user specified. If reviewing a diff, include the diff text and list the full file paths for context.}

     {If the scope is a diff or a narrow range, add: "Focus on the specified content. Flag issues in surrounding text ONLY if the specified content introduced an inconsistency with it."}

     {If the scope spans multiple files or a concept, add: "Pay attention to consistency across the files. Flag contradictions, redundancies, or inconsistencies as they span these locations."}

     For each finding:

     • Location: file path and line number (or quoted text)
     • Issue: what's wrong, specifically
     • Suggestion: a concrete fix, not just "improve this"
     • Severity: must-fix (correctness bug, safety issue, clear violation) or suggestion (improvement, not wrong as-is)

     Do NOT flag:

     • Pre-existing issues on unmodified lines (unless the change introduced an inconsistency)
     • Things that linters or compilers already catch (formatting, imports, type errors) — automated checks run separately
     • Pedantic nitpicks or style preferences not backed by project policy
     • Intentional behavior changes that are clearly deliberate
     • Code covered by lint-ignore or allow attributes

     Tool usage rules:

     • Use the Grep tool for searching file contents — do NOT run grep or rg as a Bash command.
     • Use the Read tool to read files — do NOT use cat, head, or tail.
     • Use the Glob tool to find files — do NOT use find or ls.
     • When you do use Bash, the command must be a clean shell command with NO comment lines (#) prepended. Put your reasoning in the description parameter, not in the command itself.

     Stay within your policy's scope. Be specific. If you find no real issues, say so — don't manufacture problems.

   Launch ALL agents in parallel (multiple Task calls in one message).

Step 3: Run Automated Checks

In parallel with the reviewer agents (launched in Step 2), run automated checks:

1. cargo clippy --workspace --all-features -- -D warnings
2. cargo fmt --all -- --check
3. RUSTDOCFLAGS="-D warnings" cargo doc --no-deps --all --document-private-items

If any check fails, include the relevant diagnostics alongside reviewer results in the synthesis step.

Step 4: Synthesize

Once all agents return, organize findings by location (file path, then line number). If multiple reviewers flagged overlapping concerns, merge them. Present:

• Must-fix issues first
• Suggestions second
• For each finding, note which reviewer(s) identified it

If the review scope was cross-file or conceptual, add a short section about cross-cutting observations (consistency, naming conventions, etc.).

Step 5: Triage

Two modes based on how the review was invoked:

Local Mode (file paths, diff, concept)

Use AskUserQuestion to let the user decide the disposition of each finding (or group of closely related findings). For each, offer:

• Fix — apply the suggested fix now
• Skip — drop this finding

If there are many findings, batch them into logical groups and ask about each group rather than each individual finding.

For each finding the user chose to fix:

1. Read the target file to get the current content.
2. Apply the suggested change using the Edit tool.
3. After applying all fixes, run just ci_local to verify.
4. Briefly report what was changed and any CI results.

PR Mode (#123 or PR URL)

Use AskUserQuestion to let the user decide whether to post a synthesis comment on the PR via gh pr comment. Format findings as a numbered list with code links using the full commit SHA and line ranges (L[start]-L[end]).

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