omc-review · diff
git:20260226.15b1148 to git:20260818.3222f6d
31 added, 19 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: omc-review
- description: Alias for /plan --review
+ description: Evaluate finished work for defects, risk, and simplification before it ships
---
- # Review (Plan Review Alias)
-
- Review is a shorthand alias for `/oh-my-claudecode:plan --review`. It triggers Critic evaluation of an existing plan.
+ # Review
- ## Usage
+ Use this skill to evaluate work that already exists. Review never authors the
+ change it is judging.
- ```
- /oh-my-claudecode:review
- /oh-my-claudecode:review "path/to/plan.md"
- ```
+ This is the canonical review workflow. `merge-readiness` routes here, and
+ `ai-slop-cleaner` is an opt-in lane within it.
- ## Behavior
+ ## Goal
+ Find what is actually wrong, ranked by severity, with enough detail to act on.
- This skill invokes the Plan skill in review mode:
+ ## Workflow
+ 1. Establish what changed and what it was meant to do.
+ 2. Read the change against that intent.
+ 3. Check correctness first, then risk, then simplification.
+ 4. Verify each candidate finding before reporting it.
+ 5. Report findings most-severe first.
- ```
- /oh-my-claudecode:plan --review <arguments>
- ```
+ ## What to check
+ - **Correctness** — logic defects, edge cases, error paths, concurrency
+ - **Risk** — security boundaries, destructive operations, data integrity
+ - **Reuse** — existing utilities or patterns the change should have used
+ - **Simplification** — code that could be deleted or collapsed
+ - **Coverage** — behavior that ships untested
- The review workflow:
- 1. Read plan file from `.omc/plans/` (or specified path)
- 2. Evaluate via Critic agent
- 3. Return verdict: APPROVED, REVISE (with specific feedback), or REJECT (replanning required)
+ ## Rules
+ - Separate lanes: the reviewer must not be the author's same active context.
+ - Verify before reporting. A plausible-sounding finding that does not reproduce is noise.
+ - State severity honestly; do not pad the list to look thorough.
+ - "No findings" is a valid result when the work is sound.
+ - Advisory by default — review informs, it does not gate. Hard gates (release,
+ security, destructive operations) stay separate and fail closed.
- Follow the Plan skill's full documentation for review mode details.
+ ## Output
+ - Findings, most-severe first, each with file, line, and concrete failure scenario
+ - What was checked and found clean
+ - Anything that could not be assessed