skill-staged-review

Two-Stage Review Pipeline

Separates spec compliance (did you build the right thing?) from code quality (did you build it right?). Stage 1 must pass before Stage 2 runs.

Stage 1: Spec Compliance

Validates the implementation against the intent contract.

Step 1: Load Intent Contract

INTENT_FILE=".claude/session-intent.md"
if [[ -f "$INTENT_FILE" ]]; then
  echo "Intent contract found: $INTENT_FILE"
  cat "$INTENT_FILE"
else
  echo "WARNING: No intent contract found at $INTENT_FILE"
  echo "Skipping Stage 1 — proceeding to Stage 2 (code quality) only."
fi

If no intent contract exists: Warn the user and skip to Stage 2. Do NOT fabricate success criteria — the contract must exist from a prior workflow.

Step 2: Validate Success Criteria

For each success criterion in the intent contract:

1. Read the criterion from the ## Success Criteria section
2. Find evidence in the codebase that the criterion is met
3. Mark status:
4. [PASS] — Evidence confirms criterion is met
5. [FAIL] — Evidence shows criterion is NOT met
6. [PARTIAL] — Partially met, gaps identified

Present results:

## Stage 1: Spec Compliance

### Success Criteria Check

#### Good Enough Criteria
- [PASS] Criterion 1: <how it was met>
- [FAIL] Criterion 2: <why not met, what's missing>

#### Exceptional Criteria
- [PARTIAL] Criterion 1: <what's done, what's remaining>

Step 3: Validate Boundaries

For each boundary in the intent contract:

1. Read the boundary from the ## Boundaries section
2. Check for violations in the implementation
3. Mark status:
4. [RESPECTED] — No violations found
5. [VIOLATED] — Implementation crosses the boundary

### Boundary Check
- [RESPECTED] Boundary 1: <confirmation>
- [VIOLATED] Boundary 2: <what violated it>

Step 4: Stage 1 Gate

| Result | Action | |--------|--------| | All criteria PASS + all boundaries RESPECTED | Proceed to Stage 2 | | Any criterion FAIL | Report failures. Ask user: fix now or proceed anyway? | | Any boundary VIOLATED | Report violations. Ask user: fix now or proceed anyway? |

If user chooses to fix: Stop review, list specific fixes needed. If user chooses to proceed: Note the overrides and continue to Stage 2.

Stage 2: Code Quality

Runs stub detection and full code quality review.

Step 1: Stub Detection

Run 5 checks on all changed files:

# Get changed files
if git diff --cached --name-only 2>/dev/null | head -1 > /dev/null; then
  changed_files=$(git diff --cached --name-only)
elif git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -1 > /dev/null; then
  changed_files=$(git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD)
else
  changed_files=$(git diff --name-only)
fi

# Filter source files
source_files=$(echo "$changed_files" | grep -E "\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|sh)$" || true)

STUB_ISSUES=0

for file in $source_files; do
  [[ -f "$file" ]] || continue

  # Check 1: TODO/FIXME/PLACEHOLDER markers
  todo_count=$(grep -cE "(TODO|FIXME|PLACEHOLDER|XXX)" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
  if [[ "$todo_count" -gt 0 ]]; then
    echo "WARNING: $file has $todo_count TODO/FIXME markers"
    STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
  fi

  # Check 2: Empty function bodies
  empty_fn=$(grep -cE "function.*\{\s*\}|=>\s*\{\s*\}" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
  if [[ "$empty_fn" -gt 0 ]]; then
    echo "ERROR: $file has $empty_fn empty functions"
    STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
  fi

  # Check 3: Suspicious null/undefined returns
  null_ret=$(grep -cE "return (null|undefined);" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
  if [[ "$null_ret" -gt 0 ]]; then
    echo "WARNING: $file has $null_ret null/undefined returns — verify intentional"
    STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
  fi

  # Check 4: Substantive line count
  subst_lines=$(grep -cvE "^\s*(//|/\*|\*|#|import|export|$)" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
  if [[ "$subst_lines" -lt 5 ]]; then
    echo "WARNING: $file has only $subst_lines substantive lines"
    STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
  fi

  # Check 5: Mock/test data in production code
  mock_count=$(grep -cE "const.*(mock|test|dummy|fake).*=" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
  if [[ "$mock_count" -gt 0 ]]; then
    echo "WARNING: $file has $mock_count mock/test data references"
    STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
  fi
done

echo "Stub detection complete: $STUB_ISSUES issues found"

Step 2: Multi-LLM Quality Review (RECOMMENDED)

After stub detection, dispatch code to multiple providers for parallel quality review. A Claude-only review pipeline misses what external models catch — Codex excels at logic errors and correctness, Gemini excels at security and edge case analysis. Using both produces higher-confidence findings.

Check provider availability and dispatch in parallel:

# Get the diff for review
DIFF_CONTENT=$(git diff --cached 2>/dev/null || git diff HEAD~1..HEAD 2>/dev/null || git diff)

If external providers are available — dispatch focused reviews through Octopus routing:

providers=()
command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(codex)
command -v agy >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(agy)
command -v gemini >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(gemini)

for provider in "${providers[@]}"; do
  safe_provider=$(printf '%s' "$provider" | tr -c '[:alnum:]_-' '_')
  "${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/orchestrate.sh" spawn "$provider" \
    "Review this code diff for LOGIC, CORRECTNESS, and SECURITY issues. Focus on:
1. Logic bugs and off-by-one errors
2. Unhandled error paths
3. Race conditions or concurrency issues
4. Incorrect type handling or implicit coercions
5. Security issues at trust boundaries

Report ONLY high-confidence issues. Do NOT flag style preferences.

DIFF:
${DIFF_CONTENT}" > "/tmp/octopus-review-${safe_provider}.md" 2>/dev/null &
done

Wait for external reviews to complete, then synthesize all findings from Claude plus available external providers into a unified quality assessment. If external providers are unavailable, fall back to the Claude-only review below.

Claude (you) performs the full quality review regardless:

1. Architecture alignment — Does the code follow project patterns?
2. Error handling — Are errors caught and handled appropriately?
3. Security — Any OWASP Top 10 issues?
4. Performance — Any obvious bottlenecks or N+1 queries?
5. Readability — Clear naming, reasonable complexity?
6. Test coverage — Are new behaviors tested?

Synthesize external findings: If external providers returned results, merge their findings with yours. Where providers disagree on severity, note the divergence. Where multiple providers flag the same issue, mark it as high-confidence.

Step 3: Present Stage 2 Results

## Stage 2: Code Quality

### Stub Detection
- Files scanned: N
- Issues found: N
- [Details of each issue]

### Quality Review
- Architecture: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Error Handling: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Security: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Performance: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Readability: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Test Coverage: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]

### Blocking Issues
[List any issues that must be fixed before merge]

### Recommendations
[Non-blocking suggestions for improvement]

Combined Report

After both stages complete, present the unified report:

## Staged Review — Complete

### Stage 1: Spec Compliance
- Success Criteria: N/N passed
- Boundaries: N/N respected
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]

### Stage 2: Code Quality
- Stub Detection: N issues
- Quality Score: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
- Blocking Issues: N
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]

### Overall Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]

[If FAIL: list specific items that must be addressed]
[If PASS: ready for merge/ship]

When to Use Each Review Type

| Review Type | When | What It Checks | |-------------|------|----------------| | skill-code-review | Quick PR review | Code quality only | | skill-staged-review | Major feature completion | S