alexion/ai-artifacts
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add artifact vault contents

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
alexion
2026-08-01 14:05:09 -04:00
parent 361bde2621
commit 3230f9395b
78 changed files with 6156 additions and 42 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

46
projects/skills/078-implement-skill-matt-code-review-research.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
---
status: resolved
parent: "[[040-implement-skill-matt-skills-discovery-research]]"
claimed-by: "019fbb66-80d0-7a01-8ac9-01255adfc7b2"
claimed-at: "2026-07-31T23:47:59-04:00"
blocked-by:
- "[[040-implement-skill-matt-skills-discovery-research]]"
tags:
- ticket/research
---
# Implement skill Matt code review research
## Question
What should the migrated local `implement` skill learn from Matt Pocock's `skills/engineering/code-review` workflow?
## Findings
Matt's `code-review` reviews the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point supplied by the user, using three-dot diff against the merge base and listing commits with `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.
This branch-level review fits a committed implementation branch better than the old local `/review-uncommitted`, which reviews `git diff HEAD` before commit.
Source: `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattpocock/skills/main/skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md`.
Matt's review has two axes: Standards and Spec.
It deliberately keeps the axes separate so spec fidelity cannot hide code-quality problems and standards compliance cannot hide incorrect behavior.
The old local review adds a Risk axis.
A migrated `implement` skill should decide whether to run uncommitted three-axis review before commit, branch-level two-axis review after commit, or both.
Sources: `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattpocock/skills/main/skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md`, `/home/alexion/wrk/dotfiles/modules/agents/claude-code/skills/review-uncommitted/SKILL.md`.
Matt's review locates spec sources from issue references in commits, explicit arguments, matching PRD/spec files, or user clarification, and it asks for tracker setup if issue tracker docs are missing.
For Wayfinder, the explicit task ticket artifact should be the primary spec source, with parent map or artifacts loaded only when needed.
Source: `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattpocock/skills/main/skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md`.
Matt's Standards axis includes a Fowler-smell baseline and documented-standard override, matching the old local review's standards approach.
This should be preserved because it gives review teeth even when the repository has sparse standards docs.
Sources: `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mattpocock/skills/main/skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md`, `/home/alexion/wrk/dotfiles/modules/agents/claude-code/skills/review-uncommitted/SKILL.md`.
The packaged local skills repository does not currently contain a direct `code-review` or `review-uncommitted` counterpart.
Its packaged `axi-review` skill is a black-box CLI conformance review against AXI principles, not a code diff review, so it is not a substitute for Matt's `code-review` in the migrated `implement` workflow.
A migrated packaged `implement` must either package or depend on a new local review skill, inline a review gate, or call an external review workflow explicitly.
Source: `/home/alexion/wrk/skills/skills/axi-review/SKILL.md`.
## Conclusion
Matt's `code-review` suggests branch-level review against a fixed point may be a better final gate than uncommitted review alone.
The migrated `implement` skill should preserve separate Standards and Spec axes, keep the smell baseline, use the Wayfinder task as spec source, and decide whether to retain the local Risk axis and pre-commit timing.