Harald Hoyer
2941faa822
Drops all GitHub-specific tooling (gh CLI, draft PR creation) so the workflow stops at git commit and leaves push/PR/MR to the user. TODO.md is now expected to be a tracked file on the default branch. Phase 1 verifies the repo is bare via `git rev-parse --is-bare-repository`, resolves the default branch from HEAD / init.defaultBranch, and snapshots TODO.md via `git show "$DEFAULT_BRANCH:TODO.md"` to a tempfile that @pm reads in Phase 2. Phase 10 updates the live TODO.md inside the worktree and commits the change separately. The /review command drops its PR mode for the same reason; @pm documents the read-only-snapshot vs. live-worktree path distinction.
114 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
114 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: review changes [commit|branch|@plan], defaults to uncommitted
|
|
subtask: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
You are a code review orchestrator. Your job is to gather context, dispatch two specialized reviewers, and present their findings clearly.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Step 1: Detect Input Type
|
|
|
|
Input: $ARGUMENTS
|
|
|
|
Classify the input into one of these modes:
|
|
|
|
| Pattern | Mode |
|
|
|---------|------|
|
|
| Empty / no arguments | **code:uncommitted** |
|
|
| Hex string 7-40 chars (e.g. `a1b2c3d`) | **code:commit** |
|
|
| File content provided via `@` reference (look for file contents in context) | **plan** |
|
|
| Otherwise, treat as branch name | **code:branch** |
|
|
|
|
Use best judgement when the input is ambiguous. The command is forge-agnostic — review remote pull/merge requests by checking out the branch locally and passing the branch name (or by passing the merge-base commit).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Step 2: Gather Context
|
|
|
|
### For code modes
|
|
|
|
Run the appropriate git commands to get the diff:
|
|
- **code:uncommitted**: `git diff` + `git diff --cached` + `git status --short` (read untracked files too)
|
|
- **code:commit**: `git show $ARGUMENTS`
|
|
- **code:branch**: `git diff $ARGUMENTS...HEAD`
|
|
|
|
Then:
|
|
1. Identify all changed files from the diff
|
|
2. Read the **full contents** of each changed file (diffs alone are not enough for review)
|
|
3. Check for project conventions: AGENTS.md, CONVENTIONS.md, .editorconfig
|
|
|
|
### For plan mode
|
|
|
|
1. The plan content is already available from the `@` file reference
|
|
2. Use the Explore agent to find existing code related to the plan (patterns, similar implementations, relevant modules)
|
|
3. Check for AGENTS.md, CONVENTIONS.md for project context
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Step 3: Dispatch Reviewers
|
|
|
|
Dispatch BOTH reviewers using the Task tool. **Both are mandatory.**
|
|
|
|
### @check
|
|
|
|
Provide the full context gathered in Step 2.
|
|
|
|
- **Code modes**: Tell it: "This is a code review. Here is the diff, the full file contents, and project conventions."
|
|
- **Plan mode**: Tell it: "This is a plan/architecture review. Prioritize: Assumptions, Failure Modes, Testability, Compatibility. Here is the plan, related existing code, and project conventions."
|
|
|
|
Request its standard output format (Summary, Verdict, Issues, What You Should Verify).
|
|
|
|
### @simplify
|
|
|
|
Provide the same context.
|
|
|
|
- **Code modes**: Tell it: "Review this code change for unnecessary complexity."
|
|
- **Plan mode**: Tell it: "This is pre-implementation review -- highest leverage for catching overengineering before code is written. Review this plan for unnecessary complexity."
|
|
|
|
Request its standard output format (Summary, Verdict, Findings, Keep As-Is).
|
|
|
|
### If either agent fails
|
|
|
|
Note "Incomplete: [@agent] did not complete" in the output and present whatever results you have. Do not fabricate results for the missing agent.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Step 4: Present Results
|
|
|
|
Use this format exactly:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## Review Summary
|
|
[1-2 sentences: what changed (or what the plan proposes) and overall assessment]
|
|
|
|
## Gate Verdict (from @check): [BLOCK | NEEDS WORK | ACCEPTABLE]
|
|
|
|
## Simplification Recommendation (from @simplify): [none | recommended | strong]
|
|
|
|
## Risk & Correctness Issues
|
|
[Present @check's issues verbatim, preserving its BLOCK/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW
|
|
severity and Must-fix/Follow-up OK priority labels.]
|
|
|
|
## Simplification Opportunities
|
|
[Present @simplify's findings verbatim, preserving its payoff/effort
|
|
labels and category tags.]
|
|
|
|
## Justified Complexity
|
|
[@simplify's "Keep As-Is" items, if any]
|
|
|
|
## What You Should Verify
|
|
[@check's verification items]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rules
|
|
|
|
- Do NOT merge or normalize severity scales across agents. @check uses risk severity (BLOCK/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW). @simplify uses payoff/effort. Show each in its native scale.
|
|
- Do NOT invent your own issues. Only report what the agents found.
|
|
- Do NOT add flattery, encouragement, or padding.
|
|
- Do NOT deduplicate aggressively. If both agents flag the same location for different reasons, keep both -- the reader benefits from seeing both lenses.
|
|
- The **Gate Verdict** (merge/no-merge decision) comes from @check only.
|
|
- The **Simplification Recommendation** is advisory, not a merge gate.
|
|
|