review

Name: review
Author: stevesolun

560stars68forks

How to install review?

stevesolun/ctx/review

$npx -y skills add stevesolun/ctx --skill review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

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/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agent

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Review
2
3	Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:
4
5	- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
6	- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
7
8	Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
9
10	The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.
11
12	## Process
13
14	### 1. Pin the fixed point
15
16	Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or `main`?" Don't proceed until you have it.
17
18	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`.
19
20	### 2. Identify the spec source
21
22	Look for the originating spec, in this order:
23
24	1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
25	2. A path the user passed as an argument.
26	3. A PRD/spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
27	4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
28
29	### 3. Identify the standards sources
30
31	Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written. Common locations:
32
33	- `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`
34	- `CONTRIBUTING.md`
35	- `CONTEXT.md`, `CONTEXT-MAP.md`, per-context `CONTEXT.md` files
36	- `docs/adr/` (architectural decisions are standards)
37	- `.editorconfig`, `eslint.config.`, `biome.json`, `prettier.config.`, `tsconfig.json` (machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)
38	- Any `STYLE.md`, `STANDARDS.md`, `STYLEGUIDE.md`, or similar at the repo root or under `docs/`
39
40	Collect the list of files. The Standards sub-agent will read them.
41
42	### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
43
44	Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.
45
46	Standards sub-agent prompt — include:
47
48	- The full diff command and commit list.
49	- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
50	- The brief: "Read the standards docs. Then read the diff. Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
51
52	Spec sub-agent prompt — include:
53
54	- The diff command and commit list.
55	- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
56	- The brief: "Read the spec. Then read the diff. 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."
57
58	If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
59
60	### 5. Aggregate
61
62	Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate so the user can see them independently.
63
64	End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst single issue (if any) flagged.
65
66	## Why two axes
67
68	A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
69
70	- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
71	- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.
72
73	Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

review

560stars68forks

View on GitHub

How to install review?

stevesolun/ctx/review

$npx -y skills add stevesolun/ctx --skill review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Review
2
3	Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:
4
5	- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
6	- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
7
8	Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
9
10	The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.
11
12	## Process
13
14	### 1. Pin the fixed point
15
16	Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or `main`?" Don't proceed until you have it.
17
18	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`.
19
20	### 2. Identify the spec source
21
22	Look for the originating spec, in this order:
23
24	1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
25	2. A path the user passed as an argument.
26	3. A PRD/spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
27	4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
28
29	### 3. Identify the standards sources
30
31	Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written. Common locations:
32
33	- `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`
34	- `CONTRIBUTING.md`
35	- `CONTEXT.md`, `CONTEXT-MAP.md`, per-context `CONTEXT.md` files
36	- `docs/adr/` (architectural decisions are standards)
37	- `.editorconfig`, `eslint.config.`, `biome.json`, `prettier.config.`, `tsconfig.json` (machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)
38	- Any `STYLE.md`, `STANDARDS.md`, `STYLEGUIDE.md`, or similar at the repo root or under `docs/`
39
40	Collect the list of files. The Standards sub-agent will read them.
41
42	### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
43
44	Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.
45
46	Standards sub-agent prompt — include:
47
48	- The full diff command and commit list.
49	- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
50	- The brief: "Read the standards docs. Then read the diff. Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
51
52	Spec sub-agent prompt — include:
53
54	- The diff command and commit list.
55	- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
56	- The brief: "Read the spec. Then read the diff. 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."
57
58	If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
59
60	### 5. Aggregate
61
62	Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do not merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate so the user can see them independently.
63
64	End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst single issue (if any) flagged.
65
66	## Why two axes
67
68	A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
69
70	- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
71	- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.
72
73	Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type