Code Review: Uncommitted Changes Skill

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

Prerequisites: MUST ATTENTION READ before executing:

Understand Code First — HARD-GATE: Do NOT write, plan, or fix until you READ existing code.

Search 3+ similar patterns (grep/glob) — cite file:line evidence

Read existing files in target area — understand structure, base classes, conventions

Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <file> --direction both --json when .code-graph/graph.db exists

Map dependencies via connections or callers_of — know what depends on your target

Write investigation to .ai/workspace/analysis/ for non-trivial tasks (3+ files)

Re-read analysis file before implementing — never work from memory alone

NEVER invent new patterns when existing ones work — match exactly or document deviation

BLOCKED until: - [ ] Read target files - [ ] Grep 3+ patterns - [ ] Graph trace (if graph.db exists) - [ ] Assumptions verified with evidence

Design Patterns Quality — Priority checks for every code change:

DRY via OOP: Same-suffix classes (*Entity, *Dto, *Service) MUST ATTENTION share base class. 3+ similar patterns → extract to shared abstraction.

Right Responsibility: Logic in LOWEST layer (Entity > Domain Service > Application Service > Controller). Never business logic in controllers.

SOLID: Single responsibility (one reason to change). Open-closed (extend, don't modify). Liskov (subtypes substitutable). Interface segregation (small interfaces). Dependency inversion (depend on abstractions).

After extraction/move/rename: Grep ENTIRE scope for dangling references. Zero tolerance.

YAGNI gate: NEVER recommend patterns unless 3+ occurrences exist. Don't extract for hypothetical future use.

Anti-patterns to flag: God Object, Copy-Paste inheritance, Circular Dependency, Leaky Abstraction.

Logic & Intention Review — Verify WHAT code does matches WHY it was changed.

Change Intention Check: Every changed file MUST ATTENTION serve the stated purpose. Flag unrelated changes as scope creep.

Happy Path Trace: Walk through one complete success scenario through changed code

Error Path Trace: Walk through one failure/edge case scenario through changed code

Acceptance Mapping: If plan context available, map every acceptance criterion to a code change

NEVER mark review PASS without completing both traces (happy + error path).

Bug Detection — MUST ATTENTION check categories 1-4 for EVERY review. Never skip.

Null Safety: Can params/returns be null? Are they guarded? Optional chaining gaps? .find() returns checked?

Boundary Conditions: Off-by-one (< vs <=)? Empty collections handled? Zero/negative values? Max limits?

Error Handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent swallowed exceptions? Error types specific? Cleanup in finally?

Resource Management: Connections/streams closed? Subscriptions unsubscribed on destroy? Timers cleared? Memory bounded?

Concurrency (if async): Missing await? Race conditions on shared state? Stale closures? Retry storms?

Stack-Specific: JS: === vs ==, typeof null. C#: async void, missing using, LINQ deferred execution.

Classify: CRITICAL (crash/corrupt) → FAIL | HIGH (incorrect behavior) → FAIL | MEDIUM (edge case) → WARN | LOW (defensive) → INFO

Test Spec Verification — Map changed code to test specifications.

From changed files → find TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} in docs/business-features/{Service}/detailed-features/{Feature}.md Section 15

Every changed code path MUST ATTENTION map to a corresponding TC (or flag as "needs TC")

New functions/endpoints/handlers → flag for test spec creation

Verify TC evidence fields point to actual code (file:line, not stale references)

Auth changes → TC-{FEAT}-02x exist? Data changes → TC-{FEAT}-01x exist?

If no specs exist → log gap and recommend /tdd-spec

NEVER skip test mapping. Untested code paths are the #1 source of production bugs.

docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (content auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected: ...] header before reading)

Critical Purpose: Ensure quality — no flaws, no bugs, no missing updates, no stale content. Verify both code AND documentation.

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group or suffix (ex *Entity, *Dto, *Service, etc...) MUST ATTENTION inherit a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.

Quick Summary

Goal: Comprehensive code review of all uncommitted changes following project standards.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Plan ToDo Task to READ the following project-specific reference docs:

docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md — anti-patterns, review checklists, quality standards (READ FIRST)

project-structure-reference.md — service list, directory tree, conventions

docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md — BEM methodology, SCSS variables, mixins

docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md — design tokens, component inventory, icons

If files not found, search for: project documentation, coding standards, architecture docs.

Workflow:

Phase 0: Blast Radius — Call /graph-blast-radius skill first (MANDATORY)
Phase 1: Collect — Run git status/diff, create report file
Phase 2: File Review — Review each changed file, update report incrementally
Phase 3: Holistic — Spawn fresh-context sub-agent for unbiased holistic assessment
Phase 4: Finalize — Generate critical issues, recommendations, and suggested commit message

Key Rules:

Report-driven: always write findings to plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
Check logic placement (lowest layer: Entity > Service > Component)
Must create todo tasks for all 5 phases before starting
Be skeptical — every claim needs file:line proof
Verify convention by grepping 3+ existing examples before flagging violations
Actively check for DRY violations, YAGNI/KISS over-engineering, and correctness bugs
Cross-reference changed files against related docs — flag stale feature docs, test specs, READMEs

Code Review: Uncommitted Changes

Perform a comprehensive code review of all uncommitted changes following project standards.

Review Scope

Target: All uncommitted changes (staged and unstaged) in the current working directory.

Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

Do NOT accept code correctness at face value — verify by reading actual implementations
Every finding must include file:line evidence (grep results, read confirmations)
If you cannot prove a claim with a code trace, do NOT include it in the report
Question assumptions: "Does this actually work?" → trace the call path to confirm
Challenge completeness: "Is this all?" → grep for related usages across services
Verify side effects: "What else does this change break?" → check consumers and dependents
No "looks fine" without proof — state what you verified and how

Core Principles (ENFORCE ALL)

YAGNI — Flag code that solves problems that don't exist yet (unused parameters, speculative interfaces, premature abstractions) KISS — Flag unnecessarily complex solutions. Ask: "Is there a simpler way that meets the same requirement?" DRY — Actively grep for similar/duplicate code across the codebase before accepting new code. If 3+ similar patterns exist, flag for extraction. Clean Code — Readable > clever. Names reveal intent. Functions do one thing. No deep nesting. Follow Convention — Before flagging ANY pattern violation, grep for 3+ existing examples in the codebase. The codebase convention wins over textbook rules. No Flaws/No Bugs — Trace logic paths. Verify edge cases (null, empty, boundary values). Check error handling covers failure modes. Proof Required — Every claim backed by file:line evidence or grep results. Speculation is forbidden. Doc Staleness — Cross-reference changed files against related docs (feature docs, test specs, READMEs). Flag any doc that is stale or missing updates to reflect current code changes.

Graph-Assisted Investigation — MANDATORY when .code-graph/graph.db exists.

HARD-GATE: MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files before concluding any investigation.

Pattern: Grep finds files → trace --direction both reveals full system flow → Grep verifies details

| Task | Minimum Graph Action | | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | | Investigation/Scout | trace --direction both on 2-3 entry files | | Fix/Debug | callers_of on buggy function + tests_for | | Feature/Enhancement | connections on files to be modified | | Code Review | tests_for on changed functions | | Blast Radius | trace --direction downstream |

CLI: python .claude/scripts/code_graph {command} --json. Use --node-mode file first (10-30x less noise), then --node-mode function for detail.

Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph batch-query <f1> <f2> --json on changed files for test coverage and caller impact.

Blast Radius Pre-Analysis (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: This is the FIRST action in every review. Call /graph-blast-radius skill BEFORE any other review work.

If .code-graph/graph.db exists, run graph-blast-radius analysis before reviewing changes:

Call /graph-blast-radius skill (which runs python .claude/scripts/code_graph blast-radius --json)
Include in review: impacted files count, untested changes, risk level based on blast radius size
Use results to prioritize file review order (highest-impact files first)

Graph-Assisted Change Review

For each changed file, trace its full impact:

python .claude/scripts/code_graph trace <changed-file> --direction downstream --json — see all files affected by changes (including implicit MESSAGE_BUS consumers, event handlers)
Flag any affected file NOT covered by tests
This catches cross-service impact that simple diff review misses

Review Approach (Report-Driven Two-Phase - CRITICAL)

⛔ MANDATORY FIRST: Create Todo Tasks for Review Phases Before starting, call TaskCreate with:

[ ] [Review Phase 0] Run /graph-blast-radius to analyze change impact - in_progress (MUST ATTENTION BE FIRST)
[ ] [Review Phase 1] Get changes and create report file - pending
[ ] [Review Phase 2] Review file-by-file and update report - pending
[ ] [Review Phase 3] Spawn fresh-context sub-agent for holistic assessment - pending
[ ] [Review Phase 4] Generate final review findings - pending
[ ] [Review Phase 5] Run /docs-update if staleness detected - pending Update todo status as each phase completes. This ensures review is tracked.

Note: If Phase 1 reveals 20+ changed files, replace Phase 2-4 tasks with Systematic Review Protocol tasks: [Review Phase 2] Categorize and fire parallel sub-agents, [Review Phase 3] Synchronize and cross-reference, [Review Phase 4] Generate consolidated report

Phase 0: Run Graph Blast Radius Analysis (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)

IMPORTANT MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION: This is the FIRST action before ANY other review work. The blast radius analysis provides structural impact data (impacted files, untested changes, risk level) that informs the entire review.

[ ] Call /graph-blast-radius skill (runs python .claude/scripts/code_graph blast-radius --json)
[ ] Record in report: changed files count, impacted files count, untested changes, risk level
[ ] Use blast radius output to prioritize which files to review most carefully in Phase 2
[ ] If .code-graph/graph.db does not exist, note "Graph not available — skipping blast radius" and proceed to Phase 1

Phase 0.5: Plan Compliance Check (CONDITIONAL — only when active plan exists)

Check ## Plan Context in injected context:

If "Plan: none" → skip, log "No active plan — skipping plan compliance"
If "Plan: {path}" → load plan and verify:

Read {plan-path}/plan.md — get phase list and scope
Read relevant phase-*.md files — extract files to modify, test specifications (TC IDs), success criteria
Verify:
- [ ] Scope match — changed files listed in plan phases (warn on unplanned files)
- [ ] TC evidence — TCs mapped to completed phases have evidence (file:line), not "TBD"
- [ ] Success criteria met — phase success criteria satisfied by changes
Add "Plan Compliance" section to review report

Phase 1: Get Changes and Create Report File

[ ] Run git status to see all changed files
[ ] Run git diff to see actual changes (staged and unstaged)
[ ] Create plans/reports/code-review-{date}-{slug}.md
[ ] Initialize with Scope, Files to Review, and Blast Radius Summary sections

Phase 2: File-by-File Review (Build Report Incrementally) For EACH changed file, read and immediately update report with:

[ ] File path and change type (added/modified/deleted)
[ ] Change Summary: what was modified/added
[ ] Purpose: why this change exists
[ ] Convention check: Grep for 3+ similar patterns in codebase — does new code follow existing convention?
[ ] Correctness check: Trace logic paths — does the code handle null, empty, boundary values, error cases?
[ ] DRY check: Grep for similar/duplicate code — does this logic already exist elsewhere?
[ ] Intention check: Does this change serve the stated purpose? Flag unrelated modifications
[ ] Logic trace: Trace one happy path + one error path. Does the logic match requirements?
[ ] Semantic correctness: Does the code DO what it's supposed to? (filter logic, sort order, boundary conditions)
[ ] Issues Found: naming, typing, responsibility, patterns, bugs, over-engineering, logic errors
[ ] Continue to next file, repeat

Phase 3: Holistic Review (Fresh-Context Sub-Agent)

After ALL files reviewed in Phase 2, spawn a fresh code-reviewer sub-agent for unbiased holistic assessment. The sub-agent has ZERO memory of the Phase 2 file-by-file review.

Agent({
  description: "Fresh-context holistic review",
  subagent_type: "code-reviewer",
  prompt: "## Task\nReview ALL uncommitted changes holistically. Focus on big picture — not file-by-file.\nYou are reviewing with completely fresh eyes.\n\n## Review Scope\nRun git diff to see all uncommitted changes.\n\n## Holistic Focus Areas\n- Overall technical approach coherence — does it make sense as a unified plan?\n- Architecture: new files in correct layers (Domain/Application/Presentation)?\n- Logic in LOWEST appropriate layer?\n- Backend: mapping in Command/DTO (not Handler)?\n- Frontend: constants/columns in Model (not Component)?\n- No duplicated logic across changes?\n- Service boundaries respected?\n- No circular dependencies?\n- YAGNI: code solving hypothetical future problems?\n- KISS: unnecessarily complex solutions?\n- Function complexity: methods >30 lines? Nesting >3 levels?\n\nRead docs/project-reference/code-review-rules.md for project standards.\n\n## Output\nReturn structured findings:\n- **Status**: PASS or FAIL\n- **Architecture Issues**: [list with file:line evidence]\n- **DRY Violations**: [list]\n- **Over-engineering**: [list]\n- **Issue Count**: {number}\n\nEvery finding MUST have file:line evidence."
})

After sub-agent returns, integrate findings into the Phase 2 report for Phase 4 consolidation. The following checks are now handled by the sub-agent but can be verified in Phase 4:

Clean Code & Over-engineering Checks:

[ ] YAGNI: Any code solving hypothetical future problems? Unused params, speculative interfaces, config for one-time ops?
[ ] KISS: Any unnecessarily complex solution? Could this be simpler while meeting same requirement?
[ ] Function complexity: Methods >30 lines? Nesting >3 levels? Multiple responsibilities in one function?
[ ] Over-engineering: Abstractions for single-use cases? Generic where specific suffices? Feature flags for things that could just be changed?
[ ] Readability: Would a new team member understand this in <2 minutes? Are names self-documenting?

Documentation Staleness Check (REQUIRED):

Cross-reference changed files against related documentation using this mapping:

| Changed file pattern | Docs to check for staleness | | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | .claude/hooks/** | .claude/docs/hooks/README.md, hook count tables in .claude/docs/hooks/*.md | | .claude/skills/** | .claude/docs/skills/README.md, skill count/catalog tables | | .claude/workflows/** | CLAUDE.md workflow catalog table, .claude/docs/ workflow references | | Service code ** | docs/business-features/ doc for the affected service | | Frontend code ** | docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md, relevant business-feature docs | | Frontend legacy ** | docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md, relevant business-feature docs | | CLAUDE.md | .claude/docs/README.md (navigation hub must stay in sync) | | Backend code ** | docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md, docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md | | docs/templates/** | Any docs generated from those templates |

[ ] For each changed file, check if matching docs exist and are still accurate
[ ] Flag docs where counts, tables, examples, or descriptions no longer match the code
[ ] Flag missing docs for new features/components that should be documented
[ ] Check test specs (docs/business-features/**/test-*) reflect current behavior
[ ] Do NOT auto-fix — flag in report with specific stale section and what changed

Correctness & Bug Detection (per bug-detection-protocol.md):

[ ] Null safety: New variables/params/returns — can they be null? Are they guarded?
[ ] Boundary conditions: Off-by-one, empty collections, zero/negative/max values
[ ] Error handling: Try-catch scope correct? Silent failures? Swallowed exceptions?
[ ] Resource cleanup: Connections, streams, subscriptions properly disposed?
[ ] Concurrency: Async code with shared state safe? Missing awaits? Race conditions?
[ ] Data types: Implicit conversions, timezone issues, string/number confusion?
[ ] Business logic: Does the logic match the requirement? Trace one complete happy path + one error path through the code.

Test Spec Verification (per test-spec-verification-protocol.md):

[ ] Locate specs: From changed files → find TC-{FEAT}-{NNN} in feature docs or test-specs/
[ ] Coverage: Each changed code path has a corresponding TC (or flag as "needs TC")
[ ] New code without TCs: New functions/endpoints/handlers flagged for test spec creation
[ ] Cross-cutting: Auth changes → TC-{FEAT}-02x exist? Data changes → TC-{FEAT}-01x exist?
[ ] Stale evidence: Changed code referenced in TC Evidence fields — re-verify

Phase 4: Generate Final Review Result Update report with final sections:

[ ] Overall Assessment (big picture summary)
[ ] Critical Issues (must fix before merge)
[ ] High Priority (should fix)
[ ] Architecture Recommendations
[ ] Documentation Staleness (list stale docs with what changed, or "No doc updates needed")
[ ] Positive Observations
[ ] Suggested commit message (based on changes)

Phase 5: Docs-Update Triage (CONDITIONAL)

If the Documentation Staleness Check in Phase 4 identified stale docs:

Invoke /docs-update skill to update impacted documentation
If /docs-update produces changes, include them in the review summary
If no staleness detected in Phase 4, skip: "No doc updates needed — staleness check was clean"

Note: This step runs the docs-update triage (Phase 0) which fast-exits when no docs are impacted. Overhead is minimal for non-doc-impacting changes.

Readability Checklist (MUST ATTENTION evaluate)

Before approving, verify the code is easy to read, easy to maintain, easy to understand:

Schema visibility — If a function computes a data structure (object, map, config), a comment should show the output shape so readers don't have to trace the code
Non-obvious data flows — If data transforms through multiple steps (A → B → C), a brief comment should explain the pipeline
Self-documenting signatures — Function params should explain their role; flag unused params
Magic values — Unexplained numbers/strings should be named constants or have inline rationale
Naming clarity — Variables/functions should reveal intent without reading the implementation

Review Checklist

1. Architecture Compliance

[ ] Follows Clean Architecture layers (Domain, Application, Persistence, Service)
[ ] Uses correct repository pattern (search for: service-specific repository interface)
[ ] CQRS pattern: Command/Query + Handler + Result in ONE file (search for: existing command patterns)
[ ] No cross-service direct database access

2. Code Quality & Clean Code

[ ] Single Responsibility Principle — each function/class does ONE thing. Event handlers/consumers/jobs: one handler = one independent concern (failures don't cascade)
[ ] No code duplication (DRY) — grep for similar code, extract if 3+ occurrences
[ ] Appropriate error handling with project validation patterns (search for: validation result pattern)
[ ] No magic numbers/strings (extract to named constants)
[ ] Type annotations on all functions
[ ] No implicit any types
[ ] Early returns/guard clauses used
[ ] YAGNI — no speculative features, unused parameters, premature abstractions
[ ] KISS — simplest solution that meets the requirement
[ ] Function length <30 lines, nesting depth ≤3 levels
[ ] Follows existing codebase conventions (verify with grep for 3+ examples)

2.5. Naming Conventions

[ ] Names reveal intent (WHAT not HOW)
[ ] Specific names, not generic (employeeRecords not data)
[ ] Methods: Verb + Noun (getEmployee, validateInput)
[ ] Booleans: is/has/can/should prefix (isActive, hasPermission)
[ ] No cryptic abbreviations (employeeCount not empCnt)

3. Project Patterns (see docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md)

[ ] Uses project validation fluent API (.And(), .AndAsync())
[ ] No direct side effects in command handlers (use entity events)
[ ] DTO mapping in DTO classes, not handlers
[ ] Static expressions for entity queries

4. Security

[ ] No hardcoded credentials
[ ] Proper authorization checks
[ ] Input validation at boundaries
[ ] No SQL injection risks

5. Performance

[ ] No O(n²) complexity (use dictionary for lookups)
[ ] No N+1 query patterns (batch load related entities)
[ ] Project only needed properties (don't load all then select one)
[ ] Pagination for all list queries (never get all without paging)
[ ] Parallel queries for independent operations
[ ] Appropriate use of async/await
[ ] Entity query expressions have database indexes configured
[ ] Database collections have index management methods (search for: index setup pattern)
[ ] Database migrations include indexes for WHERE clause columns

6. Common Issues to Check

[ ] Unused imports or variables
[ ] Console.log/Debug.WriteLine statements left in
[ ] Hardcoded values that should be configuration
[ ] Missing async/await keywords
[ ] Incorrect exception handling
[ ] Missing validation

7. Backend-Specific Checks

[ ] CQRS patterns followed correctly
[ ] Repository usage (no direct DbContext access)
[ ] Entity DTO mapping patterns
[ ] Validation using project validation patterns
[ ] Seed data in data seeders, NOT in migration executors (if data must exist after DB reset → seeder)

8. Frontend-Specific Checks

[ ] Component base class inheritance correct (search for: project base component classes)
[ ] State management patterns (search for: project store base class)
[ ] Memory leaks (search for: subscription cleanup pattern)
[ ] Template binding issues
[ ] BEM class naming on all elements

9. Documentation Staleness

[ ] Changed service code → check docs/business-features/ for affected service
[ ] Changed frontend code → check docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md + business-feature docs
[ ] Changed backend code → check docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md
[ ] Changed .claude/hooks/** → check .claude/docs/hooks/README.md
[ ] Changed .claude/skills/** → check .claude/docs/skills/README.md, skill catalogs
[ ] Changed .claude/workflows/** → check CLAUDE.md workflow catalog, .claude/docs/ references
[ ] New feature/component added → verify corresponding doc exists or flag as missing
[ ] Test specs in docs/business-features/**/ reflect current behavior after changes
[ ] API changes reflected in relevant API docs or Swagger annotations

Output Format

Provide feedback in this format:

Summary: Brief overall assessment

Critical Issues: (Must fix before commit)

Issue 1: Description and suggested fix
Issue 2: Description and suggested fix

High Priority: (Should fix)

Issue 1: Description
Issue 2: Description

Suggestions: (Nice to have)

Suggestion 1
Suggestion 2

Documentation Staleness: (Docs that may need updating)

Doc 1: What is stale and why
No doc updates needed — if no changed file maps to a doc

Positive Notes:

What was done well

Suggested Commit Message:

type(scope): description

- Detail 1
- Detail 2

Systematic Review Protocol (for 10+ changed files)

NON-NEGOTIABLE: When the changeset is large (10+ files), you MUST ATTENTION use this systematic protocol instead of reviewing files one-by-one sequentially.

Principle: Review carefully and systematically — break into groups, fire multiple agents to review in parallel. Ensure no flaws, no bugs, no stale info, and best practices in every aspect.

Auto-Activation

In Phase 0, after running git status, count the changed files. If 10 or more files changed:

STOP the sequential Phase 1-3 approach
SWITCH to this Systematic Review Protocol automatically
ANNOUNCE to user: "Detected {N} changed files. Switching to systematic parallel review protocol."

The sequential Phase 1-3 approach is ONLY for small changesets (<20 files). For large changesets, the parallel protocol produces better results with fewer missed issues.

Step 1: Categorize Changes

Group all changed files into logical categories (e.g., by directory, concern, or layer):

| Category | Example Groupings | | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | Claude tooling | .claude/hooks/, .claude/skills/, .claude/workflows.json | | Root docs & instructions | CLAUDE.md, README.md, .github/ | | System docs | .claude/docs/** | | Project docs & biz features | docs/business-features/, docs/*-reference.md | | Backend code | src/Services/**/*.cs | | Frontend code | src/{frontend}/**/*.ts, src/{legacy-frontend}/**/*.ts |

Step 2: Fire Parallel Sub-Agents

Launch one code-reviewer sub-agent per category using the Agent tool with run_in_background: true. Each sub-agent receives:

Full list of files in its category
Category-specific review checklist
Cross-reference verification instructions (counts, tables, links)

All sub-agents run in parallel to maximize speed and coverage.

Step 3: Synchronize & Cross-Reference

After all sub-agents complete:

Collect findings from each agent's report
Cross-reference — verify counts, keyword tables, and references are consistent ACROSS categories
Detect gaps — issues that only appear when looking across categories (e.g., a workflow added in .claude/ but missing from CLAUDE.md keyword table)
Consolidate into single holistic report with categorized findings

Step 4: Holistic Big-Picture Assessment

With all category findings combined, assess:

Overall coherence of changes as a unified plan
Cross-category synchronization (do docs match code? do counts match reality?)
Risk areas where categories interact
Missing documentation updates for changed code

Why This Protocol Matters

Sequential file-by-file review of 50+ files causes:

Context window exhaustion before completing review
Missed cross-file inconsistencies
Shallow review of later files due to attention fatigue
No big-picture assessment

Parallel categorized review ensures thorough coverage with holistic synthesis.

Workflow Recommendation

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS: If you are NOT already in a workflow, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to ask the user. Do NOT judge task complexity or decide this is "simple enough to skip" — the user decides whether to use a workflow, not you:

Activate review-changes workflow (Recommended) — review-changes → review-architecture → code-simplifier → code-review → performance → plan → plan-validate → cook → watzup

Execute /review-changes directly — run this skill standalone

Architecture Boundary Check

For each changed file, verify it does not import from a forbidden layer:

Read rules from docs/project-config.json → architectureRules.layerBoundaries
Determine layer — For each changed file, match its path against each rule's paths glob patterns
Scan imports — Grep the file for using (C#) or import (TS) statements
Check violations — If any import path contains a layer name listed in cannotImportFrom, it is a violation
Exclude framework — Skip files matching any pattern in architectureRules.excludePatterns
BLOCK on violation — Report as critical: "BLOCKED: {layer} layer file {filePath} imports from {forbiddenLayer} layer ({importStatement})"

If architectureRules is not present in project-config.json, skip this check silently.

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

"/code-review (Recommended)" — Deeper code quality review
"/watzup" — Wrap up session and review all changes
"Skip, continue manually" — user decides

AI Agent Integrity Gate (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Completion ≠ Correctness. Before reporting ANY work done, prove it:

Grep every removed name. Extraction/rename/delete touched N files? Grep confirms 0 dangling refs across ALL file types.

Ask WHY before changing. Existing values are intentional until proven otherwise. No "fix" without traced rationale.

Verify ALL outputs. One build passing ≠ all builds passing. Check every affected stack.

Evaluate pattern fit. Copying nearby code? Verify preconditions match — same scope, lifetime, base class, constraints.

New artifact = wired artifact. Created something? Prove it's registered, imported, and reachable by all consumers.

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION READ the following files before starting:

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search 3+ existing patterns and read code BEFORE any modification. Run graph trace when graph.db exists.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check DRY via OOP, right responsibility layer, SOLID. Grep for dangling refs after moves.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run at least ONE graph command on key files when graph.db exists. Pattern: grep → trace → verify.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify WHAT code does matches WHY it changed. Trace happy + error paths.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION check null safety, boundaries, error handling, resource management for every review.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION map changed code paths to TC-{FEAT}-{NNN}. Flag untested paths.

Agent Skills: Code Review: Uncommitted Changes

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files