code-review ยท diff
git:20260325.a6b3a88 to git:20260507.56f011d
53 added, 50 removed. Audit A to A.
- ---
- name: code-review
- description: Structured code quality assessment with Conventional Comments format, scaled review depth, and soft-gating verdicts preserving user autonomy.
- allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, AskUserQuestion
- ---
-
- # Code Review
-
- ## Overview
-
- Assess code quality, design, correctness, and maintainability through a structured 9-step review workflow. Uses Conventional Comments format with file-specific references.
-
- ## When to Use
-
- - After implementation phase completes
- - When reviewing code changes before merge
- - As part of the /review-code command
-
- ## Process
-
- 1. Identify modified files via git
- 2. Assess change magnitude for review depth
- 3. Execute 9-step review: context, correctness, design, testing, security flags, operations, maintainability
- 4. Synthesize findings in standardized report
- 5. Deliver verdict with rationale
-
- ## Review Depth Scaling
-
- - Under 200 lines: full detail review
- - 200-1000 lines: focused review on critical areas
- - Over 1000 lines: architectural-level review only
-
- ## Verdicts
-
- - **APPROVE**: Ready for security review
- - **APPROVE WITH NITS**: Non-blocking suggestions only
- - **REQUEST CHANGES**: Blocking issues exist (user may override)
-
- ## Key Rules
-
- - Provide specific file paths and line numbers
- - Include at least one positive comment per review
- - Use Conventional Comments format with decorations
- - Explain reasoning, not just observations
- - Limit critical issues to top 5 per category
- - Reviews are soft gates preserving user autonomy
-
- ## Tool Use
-
- Invoke via babysitter process: `methodologies/rpikit/rpikit-review`
+ ---
+ name: code-review
+ description: Structured code quality assessment with Conventional Comments format, scaled review depth, and soft-gating verdicts preserving user autonomy.
+ allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, AskUserQuestion
+ graph:
+ domains: [domain:software-engineering]
+
+ ---
+
+ # Code Review
+
+ ## Overview
+
+ Assess code quality, design, correctness, and maintainability through a structured 9-step review workflow. Uses Conventional Comments format with file-specific references.
+
+ ## When to Use
+
+ - After implementation phase completes
+ - When reviewing code changes before merge
+ - As part of the /review-code command
+
+ ## Process
+
+ 1. Identify modified files via git
+ 2. Assess change magnitude for review depth
+ 3. Execute 9-step review: context, correctness, design, testing, security flags, operations, maintainability
+ 4. Synthesize findings in standardized report
+ 5. Deliver verdict with rationale
+
+ ## Review Depth Scaling
+
+ - Under 200 lines: full detail review
+ - 200-1000 lines: focused review on critical areas
+ - Over 1000 lines: architectural-level review only
+
+ ## Verdicts
+
+ - **APPROVE**: Ready for security review
+ - **APPROVE WITH NITS**: Non-blocking suggestions only
+ - **REQUEST CHANGES**: Blocking issues exist (user may override)
+
+ ## Key Rules
+
+ - Provide specific file paths and line numbers
+ - Include at least one positive comment per review
+ - Use Conventional Comments format with decorations
+ - Explain reasoning, not just observations
+ - Limit critical issues to top 5 per category
+ - Reviews are soft gates preserving user autonomy
+
+ ## Tool Use
+
+ Invoke via babysitter process: `methodologies/rpikit/rpikit-review`