git:20261002.8c813e9 to git:20261002.3dea55f

---

name: code-review-2axis

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".

license: MIT

---

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** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you - run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.

## 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 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`.

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 they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".

### 3. Identify the standards sources

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 - and, 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

Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.

**Standards sub-agent prompt** - 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 repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

**Spec sub-agent prompt** - 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."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec 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 - 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.

## 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, Spec fail.**

- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions -> **Spec pass, Standards fail.**

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.