Review
Dispatch specialised reviewers to check football data code and visualisations for correctness, convention compliance, and edge cases.
Accuracy
Read and follow docs/accuracy-guardrail.md before answering any question about provider-specific facts.
First: check profile
Read .nutmeg.user.md. If it doesn't exist, tell the user to run /nutmeg first.
Determine scope
Look at what the user wants reviewed. Read the relevant files. Then decide which reviewers to dispatch:
| Signal | Dispatch | |---|---| | Code processes football data (fetching, filtering, transforming, computing metrics) | data-reviewer agent | | Code renders a chart or visualisation | chart-reviewer agent (Mode 1: Code Review) | | User provides a URL or says "check how it looks" | chart-reviewer agent (Mode 2: Visual Inspection) | | Chart has filters, tooltips, state, or dynamic data | chart-reviewer agent (Mode 3: Interactive Edge Cases) | | Code imports @withqwerty/campos-* (React + campos) | chart-reviewer agent (Mode 4: React + Campos) — pass skills/_shared/campos-bridge.md in context | | Code does both data processing AND chart rendering | Both agents in parallel |
Always dispatch at least one. If unclear, dispatch both — redundant findings are better than missed issues.
Detection for Mode 4: grep the reviewed files for @withqwerty/campos- or from "@withqwerty/campos. Any match activates Mode 4 alongside Mode 1.
Dispatch
Spawn agents in parallel when dispatching multiple. Each agent receives:
- The file paths to review
- The user's profile (language, provider, experience level)
- Which mode(s) to run (for chart-reviewer)
- Context: what the user said they built and what they're worried about
Data reviewer prompt template
Review the football data code in [FILE_PATHS].
The user is working with [PROVIDER] data in [LANGUAGE].
They built: [DESCRIPTION]
Their concern: [WHAT_THEY_SAID]
Follow the full review checklist in your agent prompt. Use search_docs to verify
provider-specific facts (coordinate systems, qualifier IDs, event types).Chart reviewer prompt template
Review the chart code in [FILE_PATHS].
Mode(s): [Code Review / Visual Inspection / Interactive Edge Cases]
The user is building: [DESCRIPTION]
Their concern: [WHAT_THEY_SAID]
Stack: [LANGUAGE + LIBRARIES from profile]
[If visual inspection: URL or instructions to render]
Load skills/brainstorm/references/chart-canon.md for convention checking.Synthesise findings
After both agents report back:
- Deduplicate — if both flag the same issue (e.g., wrong coordinate system), merge into one finding
- Sort by severity — Critical first, then Warning, then Info
- Group logically — Data issues, then Rendering issues, then Convention issues, then Edge cases
- Present concisely — table format with severity, location, issue, fix
When to suggest visual inspection
If the chart-reviewer's code review finds potential rendering issues but can't confirm without seeing the output, suggest:
"The code review found [N] potential rendering issues. Want me to visually inspect the chart? I'll need a URL or you can run it locally."
Don't require visual inspection — many users can't easily serve their chart locally. Code review alone catches most issues.
After review
If findings are found:
- Ask the user which ones to fix
- For Critical issues, offer to fix them directly
- For Warning/Info, explain the trade-off and let them decide
If no findings:
- Say so clearly. Don't invent issues to justify the review.
- Optionally mention what was checked so the user knows the review was thorough.