name: code-review description: Standalone code review methodology for structured, severity-classified code assessment

Code Review Skill

Activate this skill when performing standalone code reviews via the /maestro:review command or during orchestration quality gates (post-phase checks and final completion gate). This skill provides the methodology for scoping, executing, and reporting code reviews.

Scope Detection Protocol

Determine review scope using the following priority order:

1. User-specified paths: If the user provides file paths or glob patterns, expand glob patterns using the glob tool to resolve them to concrete file paths before delegating to the code_reviewer agent
2. Staged changes: If git diff --staged produces output, review staged changes
3. Last commit diff: If no staged changes exist, review the last commit via git diff HEAD~1
4. Fallback: If none of the above yield content, ask the user to specify scope

Always confirm the detected scope with the user before proceeding.

If scope is provided as file paths and a git diff is empty for some paths (for example, new unstaged files), include those files' current contents directly in review context so they are still reviewed.

Review Orchestration

Delegation Flow

1. Detect review scope using the protocol above
2. Gather the full diff content for the detected scope, and include current file contents when diff content is unavailable for scoped files
3. Delegate to the code_reviewer agent with:
   • The full diff content
   • File paths involved
   • Any user-provided focus areas or concerns
4. Process the agent's Task Report
5. Present findings to the user in the structured output format below

Context Enrichment

When delegating to the code_reviewer agent, include:

• The diff content (not just file names)
• Surrounding context for modified sections (10 lines before/after when available)
• Project language and framework information (detected from package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, etc.)

Severity Classification

Critical

Issues that could cause security vulnerabilities, data loss, or system crashes:

• SQL/NoSQL injection vectors
• Authentication/authorization bypasses
• Unvalidated user input at system boundaries
• Resource leaks (unclosed connections, file handles)
• Race conditions with data corruption potential

Major

Issues that cause bugs, design flaws, or significant maintainability problems:

• Logic errors in business rules
• Missing error handling on external calls
• SOLID principle violations that impact extensibility
• Incorrect API contracts or type mismatches
• Missing null/undefined checks on external data

Minor

Issues related to style, naming, or minor convention violations:

• Naming inconsistencies
• Code style deviations from project conventions
• Suboptimal but correct implementations
• Missing type annotations where inference is insufficient

Suggestion

Optional improvements that enhance readability or maintainability:

• Alternative patterns that improve clarity
• Performance optimizations with marginal impact
• Structural improvements for future extensibility

Output Format

Present findings in a structured table followed by a summary:

## Code Review Results

**Scope**: [description of what was reviewed]
**Files Reviewed**: [count]
**Total Findings**: [count by severity]

### Findings

| # | Severity | File | Line | Description | Suggested Fix |
|---|----------|------|------|-------------|---------------|
| 1 | Critical | path/to/file.ts | 42 | [description] | [fix] |
| 2 | Major | path/to/file.ts | 87 | [description] | [fix] |

### Summary

[1-2 paragraph summary of overall code quality, patterns observed, and priority actions]

Verification Rule

Every finding must:

• Reference a specific file and line number
• Be verified against the actual code (not assumed from patterns)
• Include a concrete suggested fix or action
• Be classified with a severity that matches the classification criteria above

Do NOT report:

• Speculative issues based on assumptions about runtime behavior
• Style preferences not established by the project's conventions
• Issues in code outside the review scope

Review Scope Calibration

Calibrate the depth and focus of review based on the type of change being reviewed:

Calibration Rules

• New files: Full review across all dimensions — architecture fit, pattern compliance, security, naming conventions, error handling, testability, dependency direction
• Modified files (behavior change): Focus on the diff — correctness of new behavior, regression risk, contract compliance with existing interfaces, edge case handling in new code paths
• Modified files (refactoring): Focus on behavior preservation — verify same inputs produce same outputs, no unintended side effects introduced, no behavior changes disguised as refactoring
• Deleted files: Dependency verification — confirm no remaining code imports from, references, or depends on the deleted files. Check for orphaned tests that tested the deleted code.
• Configuration changes: Environment impact assessment — does this change affect production? Staging? Local development? All environments? Are there secrets or credentials involved?

Application

When reviewing a diff that contains multiple change types (new files + modifications + deletions), apply the appropriate calibration to each file independently. Do not apply "new file" depth to a file that only had a minor modification.

Finding Deduplication Protocol

When reviewing multiple files, identify and consolidate findings that share the same root cause.

Deduplication Rules

• If the same pattern violation appears in 3+ files, report it once as a systemic finding with the list of all affected locations — not as N separate findings
• A systemic finding includes: the pattern being violated, why it matters, the full list of affected file:line locations, and a single remediation recommendation that addresses all instances
• Unique findings (appearing in only 1-2 files) are reported individually as normal

Deduplication Format

### Systemic Finding: [Pattern Violation Name]
- **Severity**: [Critical | Major | Minor | Suggestion]
- **Description**: [What the pattern violation is and why it matters]
- **Affected Locations**:
  - `path/to/file1.ext:line` — [brief context]
  - `path/to/file2.ext:line` — [brief context]
  - `path/to/file3.ext:line` — [brief context]
- **Remediation**: [Single recommendation that addresses all instances]

This produces cleaner, more actionable review output by surfacing systemic issues as patterns rather than repeating the same finding across multiple files.