code-review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

• Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
• Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating Kairos item's acceptance criteria?

Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context; this skill aggregates their findings and posts a review record back to the Kairos item. The sub-agents inherit the MCP tools of the session, the Kairos tools too. Paste the content into their prompts anyway, not short codes alone: then both axes read the same spec. Only this skill writes to the item (append_note).

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). 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 diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.

2. Identify the originating Kairos item

Look for the item the change implements, in this order:

1. A short code the user passed as an argument (e.g. KAIROS-T-0123).
2. Short codes in the commit messages or the branch name (they follow the ORG-<letter>-<number> shape).
3. The session's active items (SessionStart context, or my_boards → board_items on your delivery board) — use one only when it unambiguously matches the change; otherwise treat it as a guess to confirm with the user.
4. If nothing surfaces, ask the user. If they say there is no originating item, skip the Spec sub-agent (note it in the final report) — step 6 carries its own guard.

Fetch the item with get_item <short-code> and extract its acceptance criteria — plus the objective and any requirements sections if the criteria are thin. This pasted content is the spec the Spec sub-agent reviews against.

Repository check (COLLIERY-A-0023). get_item prints the item's repository: <slug> (owner: <team>); compare the slug with this checkout (the session's repository, or git remote get-url origin matched via list_repositories / GET /api/repositories?forge=&name=). The owner can be a different team from the team of the item; that is not a finding. A mismatch of the slug is a finding in its own right in the final report: the change implements a task that links to a different repository. Either the link is wrong (set_repository corrects it), or the work is in the wrong codebase. An item with no repository gets a note that recommends the link.

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, or CLAUDE.md. Check the repo root and docs/ for those names plus any markdown whose title claims coding conventions; this step is done when the list of standards files to hand the Standards sub-agent is written down — an empty list is a valid outcome (the baseline below still applies).

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 acceptance criteria don'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. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Send a single message with two Agent tool calls. Use the general-purpose subagent for both.

Standards sub-agent prompt — 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 — the twelve smells and their two binding rules — 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 diff command and commit list.
• The item's short code and title, and its acceptance criteria (and objective/requirements) pasted in full from step 2.
• The brief: "Report: (a) acceptance criteria that are unmet or partially met by the diff; (b) behaviour in the diff the item didn't ask for (scope creep); (c) criteria that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the criterion for each finding. Under 400 words."

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under ## Standards and ## Spec headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned, then end with a one-line summary per axis: its finding count and its worst issue (if any). Keep the axes separate end to end — a change can follow every standard yet implement the wrong thing, or do exactly what the item asked while breaking the repo's conventions — so merging, reranking, or picking a single winner across axes lets one axis mask the other.

6. Post the review record

Skip this step when no originating item was found. Otherwise append a structured record to the item with append_note, so the review outlives this conversation:

### Code review — <date> (diff vs <fixed-point>)
- Standards: <N> findings — worst: <one line, or "none">
- Spec: <M> findings — worst: <one line, or "none">
- <one bullet per significant finding, prefixed [standards] or [spec]>

append_note adds the record to the item as a note in one call: no version and no anchor text. get_item shows it after the content, under a heading with its id, the date and your name. Keep the record compact: findings in full live in the conversation; the item carries the durable summary.