/review-spd

name: review-spd
description: >-
  Findings-first code review workflow for AI coding agents. Use when the user asks
  to review uncommitted changes, commits in a date range, or a branch compared to
  the main branch / PR-style diff. Focuses on bugs, regressions, correctness risks,
  missing tests, security/data-safety issues, and other behavior-changing defects.
version: 1.0.1

Review SPD

You are executing the **Review SPD** workflow: a findings-first review of changed code. Identify bugs, regressions, and behavior risks introduced by the changes. Do not turn this into a style review or a broad summary.

Configuration

| Item | Default | Purpose | |:-----|:--------|:--------| | Context script | `scripts/review-context.py` relative to this Review SPD skill directory | Collect stable git context | | Default target | Uncommitted changes | Working tree + staged changes | | Commit range default | Last 3 days | Only when the user requests commit/date review without dates | | PR base | Auto-detect `origin/main`, `origin/master`, then remote default branch | Base for branch-vs-main review | | Output style | Findings first | Findings by severity before summaries |

References: reviewer sub-agent template `references/reviewer-template.md`; final output format `references/output-format.md`.

Target Modes

Three mutually exclusive targets:

1. **Uncommitted mode** (default) 2. **Commit-range mode** — no explicit range → last 3 days 3. **Branch / PR mode** — branch vs. main or explicit `base`

Conflict priority: `branch` specified → branch mode; else `since`/`until` → commit-range mode; else uncommitted. `base` applies only to branch mode. Vague requests ("review this") → uncommitted mode; "recent commits" without dates → `--since "3 days ago"`.

Phase 1: Target Resolution

Resolve the context script from the installed Review SPD skill directory, not from the repository being reviewed:

python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --since "3 days ago"
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --since 2026-06-28 --until 2026-07-01
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --branch feature/foo
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --branch feature/foo --base origin/main

When reviewing this repository itself, the convenience wrapper `scripts/review-context.py` is also available.

Phase 2: Context Collection

Run the script with cwd = the repository under review (it cd's to the git root itself). The script only collects git context; it does not judge correctness. From its output identify: review mode and base/head, commit list (if any), changed files and diff stats, added/deleted/renamed files, and the unified diff hunks needing semantic review.

If the script reports no changes, stop and say there is nothing to review. Do not invent findings.

Phase 3: Review Planning

Classify review size:

• **Small** (≤3 files, localized diff): cover Correctness + Tests.
• **Medium** (multiple files / behavior-affecting): add Regression/Compatibility.
• **Large or high-risk** (broad changes, auth/permissions, persistence, migrations, concurrency, caching, money, security, public APIs, generated code, config/deployment): add Security/Data Safety + Performance/Concurrency.

Prioritize behavior code, public contracts, data handling, error paths, configuration, persistence, tests. Deprioritize docs, formatting-only changes, generated files, lockfile churn unless they affect runtime behavior.

Phase 4: Sub-Agent Review

If the platform supports sub-agents, spawn focused reviewers using `references/reviewer-template.md`; otherwise perform the same focused reviews sequentially yourself. Coverage must not shrink without sub-agents.

Reviewer focuses:

• **Correctness / Bug Risk**: logic errors, edge cases, state consistency, exception paths, invalid assumptions.
• **Regression / Compatibility**: changed API contracts, config behavior, data formats, migrations, CLI behavior, backward compatibility.
• **Tests / Verification**: missing tests for changed behavior, weak assertions, stale tests, untested failure modes.
• **Security / Data Safety**: authorization, validation, injection, secrets, destructive operations, data loss, privacy.
• **Performance / Concurrency**: async races, caching errors, resource leaks, excessive work, ordering bugs.

Each reviewer returns only evidence-backed candidate findings for its own focus.

Phase 5: Finding Consolidation

Merge reviewer outputs into one findings list:

• Every finding must be supported by the diff or directly relevant context, with a file:line reference when possible.
• No style preferences, speculative rewrites, or generic best practices unless they create a concrete bug risk.
• Incomplete evidence → move to `Questions` or `Residual Risks`, not `Findings`.
• Deduplicate overlaps; keep the clearest impact statement.
• Order by severity: Critical, High, Medium, Low.

Severity guide:

• **Critical**: data loss, security bypass, production outage, irreversible corruption, severe user impact likely.
• **High**: clear bug/regression in a common or important path.
• **Medium**: edge-path bug, compatibility break, missing validation, or test gap likely to hide regressions.
• **Low**: minor bug risk, confusing behavior, narrow edge case, maintainability issue with direct defect potential.

Phase 6: Final Response

Use `references/output-format.md`. Findings are the primary focus: present them first, keep summaries brief, never bury a bug below a summary. No findings → explicitly state `No findings` and include residual risks or testing gaps.

Review Discipline

• Think like a code reviewer, not a feature planner: does the change introduce new bugs?
• Verify claims against code context before reporting.
• Prefer one strong finding over many weak suggestions.
• Do not modify files unless the user explicitly asks you to fix the