code-review

Two-axis review of the requested diff:

• Standards: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
• Spec: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?

When parallel agents are available, run the axes independently so findings do not bias one another, then aggregate them. A single reviewer can inspect the axes separately when delegation is unavailable or unnecessary.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Use the fixed point the user supplied (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc.). For a PR, use its target branch. For a local branch without a supplied point, use its tracked target or the repository's default branch. For uncommitted work, include the working tree. Ask only if the comparison is still ambiguous.

Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base) for committed branch work. Include staged and unstaged changes when reviewing work in progress. Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the requested comparison is non-empty, including working-tree changes when applicable. A bad ref or empty comparison should fail here, not inside the reviewers.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. The user's request or a spec path they supplied.
2. Issue references in commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.), fetched through the repository's configured tracker when available.
3. A spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found, ask where the spec is while continuing the Standards review. If there is no spec, skip the Spec axis 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. 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. Run both review axes independently

Standards reviewer prompt should include:

• The full diff command and commit list.
• 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 reviewer prompt should include:

• The diff command and commit list.
• 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 review 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, because 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 issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.