| 1 | --- |
| 2 | name: standards-review |
| 3 | description: "Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to \"review since X |
| 4 | --- |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies: |
| 7 | |
| 8 | - **Standards**: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards? |
| 9 | - **Spec**: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec? |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If not, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | ## Process |
| 16 | |
| 17 | ### 1. Pin the fixed point |
| 18 | |
| 19 | Whatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it. |
| 20 | |
| 21 | Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`. |
| 22 | |
| 23 | Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents. |
| 24 | |
| 25 | ### 2. Identify the spec source |
| 26 | |
| 27 | Look for the originating spec, in this order: |
| 28 | |
| 29 | 1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab |
| 30 | 2. A path the user passed as an argument. |
| 31 | 3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or |
| 32 | 4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** |
| 33 | |
| 34 | ### 3. Identify the standards sources |
| 35 | |
| 36 | Search the repo for every file that documents how code should be written. When `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md` exists, it must be on the list. |
| 37 | |
| 38 | On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells ( |
| 39 | |
| 40 | - **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell. |
| 41 | - **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces. |
| 42 | |
| 43 | Each smell reads *what it is* → * |
| 44 | |
| 45 | - **Mysterious Name**: a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky. |
| 46 | - **Duplicated Code**: the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both. |
| 47 | - **Feature Envy**: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies. |
| 48 | - **Data Clumps**: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that. |
| 49 | - **Primitive Obsession**: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type. |
| 50 | - **Repeated Switches**: the same |
| 51 | - **Shotgun Surgery**: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module. |
| 52 | - **Divergent Change**: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason. |
| 53 | - **Speculative Generality**: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows. |
| 54 | - **Message Chains**: long |
| 55 | - **Middle Man**: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct. |
| 56 | - **Refused Bequest**: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition. |
| 57 | |
| 58 | ### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel |
| 59 | |
| 60 | Issue both sub-agent calls together, in the foreground, and aggregate the reports they return. |
| 61 | |
| 62 | **Standards sub-agent prompt** should include: |
| 63 | |
| 64 | - The full diff command and commit list. |
| 65 | - The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** |
| 66 | - The brief: "Report, per file/hunk where relevant, (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls: documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words." |
| 67 | |
| 68 | **Spec sub-agent prompt** should include: |
| 69 | |
| 70 | - The diff command and commit list. |
| 71 | - The path or fetched contents of the spec. |
| 72 | - The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words." |
| 73 | |
| 74 | If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report. |
| 75 | |
| 76 | ### 5. Aggregate |
| 77 | |
| 78 | Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do |
| 79 | |
| 80 | End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes: that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent. |
| 81 | |
| 82 | ## Why two axes |
| 83 | |
| 84 | A change can pass one axis and fail the other: |
| 85 | |
| 86 | - Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.** |
| 87 | - Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.** |
| 88 | |
| 89 | Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other. |