arch-review-contracts ยท diff
git:20260921.93b5e1e to git:20260921.f72eecd
28 added, 19 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: arch-review-contracts
description: "Review code or a change through the Contracts lenses of the Software Design and Architecture Guidelines. Covers Interfaces, Separation of Layers, The Business Layer, The Network Layer (Service Interfaces and Impls, Direction of Calls), Cross-Cutting Conventions (The App Container): interfaces, injection, wiring. Use for a change that touches this area, or as one leg of arch-review-full."
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(python3:*), Bash(git diff:*), Bash(git log:*), Bash(git status:*), Bash(git rev-parse:*), Bash(git merge-base:*), Bash(git symbolic-ref:*)
---
# arch-review-contracts
Judge the code from one perspective only: the lenses in
`${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../lenses/contracts.md`. Other perspectives have
their own skills; do not borrow their rules, and do not flag anything
a lens in this file does not name. The guideline itself is at
`${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../architecture.md` when a lens needs its
source read in full. If either file is missing, stop and say the
installation is incomplete.
## Input
`$ARGUMENTS` names what to review. Interpret it as follows, in order:
1. Empty: the current branch's changes against the repository's default
branch (committed since the merge base, plus the working tree). The
default branch is `origin/HEAD` when set, else `main`, else
`master`. When the scope resolves to no files, report "nothing to
review" in the report's Scope line and stop.
2. A path or glob: every file under it, as it is now. A path that does
not exist is an error; say so and stop.
3. A git ref or range (`abc123`, `main..HEAD`): the diff of that range.
4. The word `all`: the whole repository. Expect this to take a while.
Read changed files in full, not only the changed lines. Rules break in
the interaction between the new code and its neighbors, so pull in the
interface a class implements, the root that wires it, and the callers
of a changed signature.
## Procedure
1. Read the lens file end to end before looking at any code.
2. Establish the scope and list the files in it.
3. Run the checker that shipped with this lens file, from the root of
the repository under review:
`python3 "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../checkers/arch_check.py" --group contracts --format json`.
- Exit 0 means no findings and exit 1 means findings; both are a
- run. Its findings on files outside the scope are dropped, and so is
- anything under `exceptions_applied`: a deviation the project
- recorded with an ADR, which is not a finding. The output's
- `rules_run` says which lenses it covered, the rules this guideline
- ships and the project's own alike, each with a coverage and a
- summary. A lens covered `full` is decided here: each of its
- findings in scope is a finding, with the checker's file and line,
- and no finding is a pass whose evidence is the checker, which read
- every file. A lens covered `partial` is decided in step 4, and the
- rule's summary says which part the checker holds: a checker finding
- in scope makes the lens a finding whatever the rest shows, and no
- checker finding leaves the rest to judge; the lens passes only when
- that rest passes too. A lens absent from `rules_run` is judged whole
- in step 4. When the checker cannot run (a Python older than 3.11,
- exit code 2, a project pinned to a newer Python than `python3`),
- say so in the report's Scope line and judge every lens in step 4,
- the ones it would have decided included. The review is the
- checker's fallback.
+ Then read its output:
+ - Exit 0 means no findings and exit 1 means findings. Both are a
+ run.
+ - Drop its findings on files outside the scope. Drop anything under
+ `exceptions_applied`: a deviation the project recorded with an
+ ADR, which is not a finding.
+ - A finding whose `group` is `framework` is about the checker's own
+ input: `PARSE`, a file no rule could read, or `IGNORE`, an inline
+ ignore that does not resolve. One in scope is a finding under its
+ own id, at `high`. No lens passes on the checker's evidence for a
+ file that does not parse.
+ - `rules_run` says which lenses it covered, the rules this guideline
+ ships and the project's own alike, each with a coverage and a
+ summary.
+ - A lens covered `full` is decided here. Each of its findings in
+ scope is a finding, with the checker's file and line. No finding
+ is a pass whose evidence is the checker, which read every file.
+ - A lens covered `partial` is decided in step 4, and the rule's
+ summary says which part the checker holds. A checker finding in
+ scope makes the lens a finding whatever the rest shows. With no
+ checker finding, the rest is judged, and the lens passes only
+ when that rest passes too.
+ - A lens absent from `rules_run` is judged whole in step 4.
+ - When the checker cannot run (a Python older than 3.11, exit code
+ 2, a project pinned to a newer Python than `python3`), say so in
+ the report's Scope line and judge every lens in step 4, the ones
+ it would have decided included. The review is the checker's
+ fallback.
4. For every lens the checker did not decide, in id order, decide one
of: **finding** (evidence of a breach, with a file and line),
**pass** (the lens applies and the code satisfies it), **not
applicable** (nothing in scope touches what the lens judges), or
**unverified** (the lens applies, and what would decide it lies
outside the scope and the neighbors the Input section says to read;
name what would decide it). A partial lens whose judged part touches
nothing in scope is not applicable, whatever the checker read. Keep
the "Look for" and "Violation" text of the lens in front of you
while deciding.
5. Verify every finding against the real source: open the file, confirm
the line, confirm the surrounding code does not already handle it.
Drop a finding you cannot point at. Verify a **pass** on a `high`
lens the same way: open the file that would breach it and name that
file in the report; a high lens passes on evidence, never on the
absence of a finding, and a high lens whose evidence is out of
reach is unverified, never passed. A clean run of the checker is
evidence for a lens it decides whole; name `arch-check` as the proof.
For a partial high lens it is evidence for the checker's part only,
and the rest needs a file of its own.
6. Assign severity from the lens, adjusted only downward when the
breach is contained (a test double, a documented exception the
guideline names, an ADR cited next to the code).
7. Write the report in the format below. Nothing else; no preamble.
Never edit, stage, or commit. This skill reads and reports.
## Output
```markdown
# Architecture review: Contracts
**Scope.** <what was reviewed, in one line>
**Lenses.** <n> applied, <p> passed, <f> findings, <u> unverified, <x> not applicable
## Findings
- **<LENS-ID> <severity>** `<path>:<line>` <what breaks the rule, one sentence>. Fix: <one sentence>.
## Passed
<LENS-ID>, <LENS-ID> (`<path>`), ...
## Unverified
<LENS-ID> (<what would decide it, a few words>), ...
## Not applicable
<LENS-ID> (<why, a few words>), ...
```
Findings are ordered most severe first, then by file. When there are
no findings, the section reads `No findings.`; an empty Unverified
section reads `None.` A `high` lens in Passed names the file that
proved it. Every lens id in the lens file appears in exactly one of
the four sections. Applied is passed plus findings plus unverified,
so applied plus not applicable is the number of lenses in the file.