3.3 KiB
status, parent, claimed-by, claimed-at, blocked-by, tags
| status | parent | claimed-by | claimed-at | blocked-by | tags | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| resolved | 040-implement-skill-matt-skills-discovery-research | 019fbb66-80d0-7a01-8ac9-01255adfc7b2 | 2026-07-31T23:47:59-04:00 |
|
|
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.