code-review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

Standards: does the code conform to this repository's documented coding standards?
Specification: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / specification?

Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

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.

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.

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.

2. Identify the specification source

Look for the originating specification, in this order:

When documentation/agents/issue-tracker.md exists, issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.), fetched via the workflow it documents. When the file is missing, skip this lookup without asking the user to run setup.
A path the user passed as an argument.
A specification file under documentation/, specifications/, backlog/, or .refinement/ matching the branch name or feature.
If nothing is found, ask the user to choose one of three paths: run /setup-custom-skills to configure tracker lookup, provide the specification or its path, or continue with the Standards axis alone. If they choose setup, tell them to run /setup-custom-skills, then resume specification discovery after it completes. If they choose Standards alone, skip the Specification sub-agent and report "no specification available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repository that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.

On top of whatever the repository documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repository documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

The repository overrides. A documented repository standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
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.

Each smell reads what it is → how to fix; match it against the diff:

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.
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.
Feature Envy: a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
Data Clumps: the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
Primitive Obsession: a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
Repeated Switches: the same switch/if-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
Shotgun Surgery: one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
Divergent Change: one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
Speculative Generality: abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the specification doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
Message Chains: long a.b().c().d() navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
Middle Man: a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
Refused Bequest: a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Standards sub-agent prompt should include:

The full diff command and commit list.
The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, plus the smell baseline from step 3 pasted in full (the sub-agent has no other access to it).
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 repository standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Specification sub-agent prompt should include:

The diff command and commit list.
The path or fetched contents of the specification.
The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the specification 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 specification line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the specification is missing, skip the Specification sub-agent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings, because the two axes are deliberately separate (see Why two axes).

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.

6. Offer to publish

Ask whether to publish this report, and where (a GitHub/GitLab pull/merge request, or a Jira issue). If the answer is no, stop here.

If yes, call the Skill tool with publish-review. That skill is experimental and not installed by default: if it isn't available, say so and name the install command (npx skills@latest add Dyrits/SKILLS --skill=publish-review) rather than attempting to replicate its posting logic here.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Specification fail.
Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Specification pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.