code-review

Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies: - **Conventions** — does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards and Tidy First practices? - **Intent** — does the change faithfully do what it claims to do? Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings. ## Where This Fits This skill owns **micro / local quality** — conventions, clarity, correctness of individual changes. It answers: "Is this change well-crafted and does it do what it says?" For **macro / structural quality** (architecture, code judo, 1k-line limits, abstraction quality), use `code-quality-review`. That skill asks: "Is there a dramatically simpler structure hiding inside this implementation?" | Concern | code-review (this skill) | code-quality-review | |---|---|---| | Clean code & naming | ✅ Primary owner | — | | Tidy First practices | ✅ Primary owner | — | | Behavior matches commits | ✅ Primary owner | — | | Guard clauses, helper vars | ✅ Primary owner | — | | File under 1k lines | Flag if crossed | Enforce strictly | | Structural simplification | Note opportunities | Demand code judo | | Abstraction quality | Flag thin wrappers | Delete unnecessary layers | ### Companion Skills A complete quality pipeline, in order: | Phase | Skills | Purpose | |-------|--------|---------| | 1. Discovery | `blindspot-pass`<br>`context-discovery` | Find unknown unknowns and gather project co...