/diff-review

description: Generate a visual HTML diff review — before/after architecture comparison with code review analysis
argument-hint: "[base..head | branch] [--style <name>] [--theme light|dark] [--slides|--handbook]"
disable-model-invocation: true

Load the visual-explainer skill, then generate a comprehensive visual diff review as a self-contained HTML page.

Follow the visual-explainer skill workflow. Read the reference template, CSS patterns, and mermaid theming references before generating. Use a GitHub-diff-inspired aesthetic with red/green before/after panels, but vary fonts and palette from previous diagrams.

**Scope detection** — interpret the requested scope, ignoring any `--flags` (those are the skill's, per its Arguments table): $ARGUMENTS

• Branch name (e.g. `main`, `develop`): working tree vs that branch
• Commit hash: that specific commit's diff (`git show <hash>`)
• `HEAD`: uncommitted changes only (`git diff` and `git diff --staged`)
• PR number (e.g. `#42`): `gh pr diff 42`
• Range (e.g. `abc123..def456`): diff between two commits
• No argument: default to `main`

**Data gathering phase** — run these first to understand the full scope:

• `git diff --stat <ref>` for file-level overview
• `git diff --name-status <ref> --` for new/modified/deleted files (separate src from tests)
• Line counts: compare key files between `<ref>` and working tree (`git show <ref>:file | wc -l` vs `wc -l`)
• New public API surface: grep added lines for exported symbols, public functions, classes, interfaces (adapt the pattern to the project's language — `export`/`function`/`class`/`interface` for TS/JS, `def`/`class` for Python, `func`/`type` for Go, etc.)
• Feature inventory: grep for new actions, keybindings, config fields, event types on both sides
• Read all changed files in full — include surrounding code paths needed to validate behavior
• Check whether `CHANGELOG.md` has an entry for these changes
• Check whether `README.md` or `docs/*.md` need updates given any new or changed features
• Reconstruct decision rationale: if this work was done in the current session, mine the conversation for approaches discussed, alternatives rejected, and trade-offs made. Check for progress docs (`~/.agent/memory/{project}/progress.md`, `~/.pi/agent/memory/{project}/progress.md`) or plan files that may contain reasoning. For committed changes, read commit messages and PR descriptions.

**Verification checkpoint** — before generating HTML, produce a structured fact sheet of every claim you will present in the review:

• Every quantitative figure: line counts, file counts, function counts, test counts
• Every function, type, and module name you will reference
• Every behavior description: what code does, what changed, before vs. after
• For each, cite the source: the git command output that produced it, or the file:line where you read it

Verify each claim against the code. If something cannot be verified, mark it as uncertain rather than stating it as fact. This fact sheet is your source of truth during HTML generation — do not deviate from it.

**Diagram structure** — the page should include: 1. **Executive summary** — not just a dry before/after. Lead with the *intuition*: why do these changes exist? What problem were they solving, what was the core insight? Then the factual scope (X files, Y lines, Z new modules). Aim for "aha moment" clarity — a reader who only sees this section should understand the essence of the change. *Visual treatment: this is the visual anchor — use hero depth (larger type 20-24px, subtle accent-tinted background, more padding than other sections).* 2. **KPI dashboard** — lines added/removed, files changed, new modules, test counts. Include a **housekeeping** indicator: whether CHANGELOG.md was updated (green/red badge) and whether docs need changes (green/yellow/red). 3. **Module architecture** — how the file structure changed, with a Mermaid dependency graph of the current state. Wrap in `.mermaid-wrap` with the standard zoom controls — see "Zoom Controls" in css-patterns.md. 4. **Major feature comparisons** — side-by-side before/after panels for each significant area of change (UI, data flow, API surface, config, etc.). 5. **Flow diagrams** — Mermaid flowchart, sequence, or state diagrams for any new lifecycle/pipeline/interaction patterns. Same zoom controls and click-to-expand as section 3. 6. **File map** — full tree with color-coded new/modified/deleted indicators. *Visual treatment: compact — consider `<details>` collapsed by default for pages with many sections.* 7. **Test coverage** — before/after test file counts and what's covered 8. **Code review** — structured Good/Bad/Ugly analysis of the changes:

• **Good**: Solid choices, improvements, clean patterns worth calling out
• **Bad**: Concrete issues — bugs, regressions, missing error handling, logic errors
• **Ugly**: Subtle problems — tech debt introduced, maintainability concerns, things that work now but will bite later
• **Questions**: Anything unclear or that needs the author's clarification
• Use styled cards with green/red/amber/blue left-border accents matching the diff color language. Each item should reference specific files and line ranges. If nothing to flag in a category, say "None found" rather than omitting the section.

9. **Decision log** — for each significant design choice in the diff, a styled card with:

• **Decision**: one-line summary of what was decided (e.g., "Promise-based deferred resolution instead of event emitters for cleanup signaling")
• **Rationale**: why this approach — constraints, trade-offs, what it enables. Pull from conversation context if available, infer from code structure if not.
• **Alternatives considered**: what was rejected and why, if recoverable
• **Confidence**: whether this rationale was explicitly discussed (high — sourced from conversation/docs) or inferred from the code (medium — flagged as inference). Low confidence means the rationale c