alexion
b7363ed7e1
Bring the declarative half of ~/.claude into modules/claude-code and apply
it when the Module is enabled: the global agent instructions (context =
./CLAUDE.md), the skills tree (skills = ./skills), the attention-bell hook,
and settings.json (model = opus plus the Stop/Notification/SessionStart
hook wiring).
Runtime state (projects, plugins, cache, history, sessions) and the
.credentials.json secret are left out, so login survives rebuilds and no
secret enters the repo. Verified against the built home-files that
~/.claude/{CLAUDE.md,settings.json,skills,hooks/attention-bell.sh} are
generated, the hook executable.
148 lines
7.7 KiB
Markdown
148 lines
7.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: review-uncommitted
|
|
description: Review the working tree's uncommitted changes along three axes — change risk, repo standards, and spec fidelity — using parallel sub-agents.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Three-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and the working tree:
|
|
|
|
- **Risk** — how much attention does this change warrant, from low to high?
|
|
- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
|
|
- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating PRD or task file?
|
|
|
|
All three 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 three 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. Risk rubric
|
|
|
|
The Risk axis judges the diff alone — no repo-doc lookup, no input from the Standards or Spec sub-agents.
|
|
It always runs; it only needs the diff from step 1.
|
|
|
|
Rate each of these six factors **Low / Medium / High**, then take the single highest-rated factor as the overall rating (worst-factor-wins):
|
|
|
|
- **Blast radius** — isolated change vs. ripples across many files, modules, or callers.
|
|
- **Reversibility** — trivial rollback vs. hard to undo (migrations, deletions, published API/schema changes).
|
|
- **Test coverage** — covered by tests in/around the diff vs. untested.
|
|
- **Sensitive domain** — touches auth, security, payments, permissions, concurrency, or data migrations.
|
|
- **Size & complexity** — large diff or tangled control flow vs. small/simple.
|
|
- **Runtime criticality** — hot path/production-critical vs. internal or dev-only tooling.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Spawn all three sub-agents in parallel
|
|
|
|
Send a single message with three `Agent` tool calls.
|
|
Use the `general-purpose` subagent for all three.
|
|
|
|
**Risk sub-agent prompt** — include:
|
|
|
|
- The full diff (output of `git diff HEAD`).
|
|
- The six risk factors from step 4, pasted in full.
|
|
- The brief: "Rate each of the six factors Low/Medium/High with a one-clause reason, then give the overall rating as the highest of the six.
|
|
Report the overall rating first, then the six factor lines.
|
|
Under 200 words."
|
|
|
|
**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.
|
|
|
|
### 6. Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Present the Risk report first, under a `## Risk` heading, with the overall rating bolded on its own line followed by the six factor lines:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
## Risk
|
|
**Overall: HIGH**
|
|
- Blast radius: ...
|
|
- Reversibility: ...
|
|
- Test coverage: ...
|
|
- Sensitive domain: ...
|
|
- Size & complexity: ...
|
|
- Runtime criticality: ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Then present the Standards and Spec reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned.
|
|
Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the axes are deliberately separate (see _Why Standards and Spec stay separate_).
|
|
|
|
End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis (Standards/Spec only), 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.
|
|
The risk rating isn't repeated here; it already leads the report.
|
|
|
|
## Why Standards and Spec stay separate
|
|
|
|
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.
|