skills: Add /review-uncommitted skill.
This commit is contained in:
123
.claude/skills/review-uncommitted/SKILL.md
Normal file
123
.claude/skills/review-uncommitted/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: review-uncommitted
|
||||
description: Review the working tree's uncommitted changes along two axes — repo standards and spec fidelity — using parallel sub-agents.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and the working tree:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
|
||||
- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating PRD or task file?
|
||||
|
||||
Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then
|
||||
this skill aggregates their findings.
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Capture the diff
|
||||
|
||||
The diff command is `git diff HEAD` — everything uncommitted, staged or not. New files
|
||||
must already be tracked (`git add`ed) to show up; this skill doesn't scan for untracked
|
||||
files, so that's the caller's responsibility.
|
||||
|
||||
Confirm the diff is non-empty before going further. An empty diff should fail here — not
|
||||
inside two parallel sub-agents.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Identify the spec source
|
||||
|
||||
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A path the user passed as an argument.
|
||||
2. A spec file matching the branch name or feature — `.claude/spec/<feature-slug>.md`.
|
||||
3. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the
|
||||
**Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Identify the standards sources
|
||||
|
||||
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as
|
||||
`CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell
|
||||
baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies
|
||||
even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
|
||||
|
||||
- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses
|
||||
something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
|
||||
- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature
|
||||
Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling
|
||||
already enforces.
|
||||
|
||||
Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it
|
||||
does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
|
||||
- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the
|
||||
change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
|
||||
- **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own.
|
||||
→ move the method onto the data it envies.
|
||||
- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type
|
||||
wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
|
||||
- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that
|
||||
deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
|
||||
- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across
|
||||
the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
|
||||
- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in
|
||||
the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
|
||||
- **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons.
|
||||
→ split so each module changes for one reason.
|
||||
- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec
|
||||
doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
|
||||
- **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on.
|
||||
→ hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
|
||||
- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call
|
||||
the real target direct.
|
||||
- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what
|
||||
it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
|
||||
|
||||
Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for
|
||||
both.
|
||||
|
||||
**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:
|
||||
|
||||
- The full diff (output of `git diff HEAD`).
|
||||
- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from
|
||||
step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
|
||||
- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a
|
||||
documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you
|
||||
spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls —
|
||||
documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement
|
||||
calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling
|
||||
enforces. Under 400 words."
|
||||
|
||||
**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:
|
||||
|
||||
- The full diff (output of `git diff HEAD`).
|
||||
- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
|
||||
- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial;
|
||||
(b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that
|
||||
look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each
|
||||
finding. Under 400 words."
|
||||
|
||||
If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Aggregate
|
||||
|
||||
Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly
|
||||
cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate
|
||||
(see _Why two axes_).
|
||||
|
||||
End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each
|
||||
axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the
|
||||
separation exists to prevent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why two axes
|
||||
|
||||
A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
|
||||
|
||||
- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass,
|
||||
Spec fail.**
|
||||
- Code that does exactly what the PRD or task asked but breaks the project's conventions
|
||||
→ **Spec pass, Standards fail.**
|
||||
|
||||
Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user