claude-dotfiles

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

• Standards: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
• Spec: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?

Both axes run as parallel sub-agents, each in its own clean context, then this skill aggregates their findings side by side.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing, tell the user to run /setup-matt-pocock-skills.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user named is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, a merge-base. If they named none, 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.

Done when the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff stops the review here, before two sub-agents spend a run on it.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. Issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in docs/agents/issue-tracker.md (missing → run /setup-matt-pocock-skills).
2. A path the user passed as an argument.
3. A spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If there isn't one, the Spec axis reports "no spec available" (step 4).

3. Identify the standards sources

When the repo has .code-review/rules.json, resolve by script, not by judgment. From the repo root run node <this skill's dir>/resolve-rules.js <fixed-point> (Node built-ins only). It maps each changed file to the standards files and inline rules whose paths globs match it, and prints JSON with files, unmatched, ignored and missingStandards (the rule file's shape is in the script's header). Use that mapping as the standards sources: per file, those standards and rules; ignored files are out of review; unmatched files get only the smell baseline below. Name each missingStandards entry in the report as a stale rule. Exit 2 means the rule file is malformed: say so and stop, rather than falling back to judgment.

With no rule file, the script reports ruleFile: null and the sources are found by judgment: anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.

On top of whatever the repo 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 repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• The repo overrides. A documented repo 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 spec 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 — with a rule file, the resolver's per-file mapping verbatim — 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 repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

Spec sub-agent prompt should include:

• The diff command and commit list.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec.
• 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."

With no spec, spawn only the Standards sub-agent and write "no spec available" under ## Spec.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned, each keeping its own findings in its own order. The axes stay separate because a change can pass one and fail the other — every standard followed but the wrong thing built (Standards pass, Spec fail), or exactly what the issue asked but the conventions broken (Spec pass, Standards fail) — and one merged ranking lets an axis mask the other.

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue within each axis (if any) — one per axis, never one overall.