---
name: review
preamble-tier: 4
version: 1.0.0
description: |
  Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust
  boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when
  asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", or "check my diff".
  Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes. (gstack)
allowed-tools:
  - Bash
  - Read
  - Edit
  - Write
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - Agent
  - AskUserQuestion
  - WebSearch
---

{{PREAMBLE}}

{{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}

# Pre-Landing PR Review

You are running the `/review` workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff against the base branch for structural issues that tests don't catch.

---

## Step 1: Check branch

1. Run `git branch --show-current` to get the current branch.
2. If on the base branch, output: **"Nothing to review — you're on the base branch or have no changes against it."** and stop.
3. Run `git fetch origin <base> --quiet && git diff origin/<base> --stat` to check if there's a diff. If no diff, output the same message and stop.

---

{{SCOPE_DRIFT}}

{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW}}

## Step 2: Read the checklist

Read `.claude/skills/review/checklist.md`.

**If the file cannot be read, STOP and report the error.** Do not proceed without the checklist.

---

## Step 2.5: Check for Greptile review comments

Read `.claude/skills/review/greptile-triage.md` and follow the fetch, filter, classify, and **escalation detection** steps.

**If no PR exists, `gh` fails, API returns an error, or there are zero Greptile comments:** Skip this step silently. Greptile integration is additive — the review works without it.

**If Greptile comments are found:** Store the classifications (VALID & ACTIONABLE, VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED, FALSE POSITIVE, SUPPRESSED) — you will need them in Step 5.

---

## Step 3: Get the diff

Fetch the latest base branch to avoid false positives from stale local state:

```bash
git fetch origin <base> --quiet
```

Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed and uncommitted changes against the latest base branch.

---

{{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}

## Step 4: Critical pass (core review)

Apply the CRITICAL categories from the checklist against the diff:
SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Shell Injection, Enum & Value Completeness.

Also apply the remaining INFORMATIONAL categories that are still in the checklist (Async/Sync Mixing, Column/Field Name Safety, LLM Prompt Issues, Type Coercion, View/Frontend, Time Window Safety, Completeness Gaps, Distribution & CI/CD).

**Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.

**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior):
- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use
- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround
- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions)

Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge.

Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section.

{{CONFIDENCE_CALIBRATION}}

---

{{REVIEW_ARMY}}

---

## Step 5: Fix-First Review

**Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**

{{CROSS_REVIEW_DEDUP}}

### Step 5a: Classify each finding

For each finding, classify as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic in
checklist.md. Critical findings lean toward ASK; informational findings lean
toward AUTO-FIX.

**Test stub override:** Any finding that has a `test_stub` field (generated by a specialist)
is reclassified as ASK regardless of its original classification. When presenting the ASK
item, show the proposed test file path and the test code. The user approves or skips the
test creation. If approved, write the fix + test file. Derive the test file path from
the finding's `path` using project conventions (`spec/` for RSpec, `__tests__/` for
Jest/Vitest, `test_` prefix for pytest, `_test.go` suffix for Go). If the test file
already exists, append the new test. Output: `[FIXED + TEST] [file:line] Problem -> fix + test at [test_path]`

### Step 5b: Auto-fix all AUTO-FIX items

Apply each fix directly. For each one, output a one-line summary:
`[AUTO-FIXED] [file:line] Problem → what you did`

### Step 5c: Batch-ask about ASK items

If there are ASK items remaining, present them in ONE AskUserQuestion:

- List each item with a number, the severity label, the problem, and a recommended fix
- For each item, provide options: A) Fix as recommended, B) Skip
- Include an overall RECOMMENDATION

Example format:
```
I auto-fixed 5 issues. 2 need your input:

1. [CRITICAL] app/models/post.rb:42 — Race condition in status transition
   Fix: Add `WHERE status = 'draft'` to the UPDATE
   → A) Fix  B) Skip

2. [INFORMATIONAL] app/services/generator.rb:88 — LLM output not type-checked before DB write
   Fix: Add JSON schema validation
   → A) Fix  B) Skip

RECOMMENDATION: Fix both — #1 is a real race condition, #2 prevents silent data corruption.
```

If 3 or fewer ASK items, you may use individual AskUserQuestion calls instead of batching.

### Step 5d: Apply user-approved fixes

Apply fixes for items where the user chose "Fix." Output what was fixed.

If no ASK items exist (everything was AUTO-FIX), skip the question entirely.

### Verification of claims

Before producing the final review output:
- If you claim "this pattern is safe" → cite the specific line proving safety
- If you claim "this is handled elsewhere" → read and cite the handling code
- If you claim "tests cover this" → name the test file and method
- Never say "likely handled" or "probably tested" — verify or flag as unknown

**Rationalization prevention:** "This looks fine" is not a finding. Either cite evidence it IS fine, or flag it as unverified.

### Greptile comment resolution

After outputting your own findings, if Greptile comments were classified in Step 2.5:

**Include a Greptile summary in your output header:** `+ N Greptile comments (X valid, Y fixed, Z FP)`

Before replying to any comment, run the **Escalation Detection** algorithm from greptile-triage.md to determine whether to use Tier 1 (friendly) or Tier 2 (firm) reply templates.

1. **VALID & ACTIONABLE comments:** These are included in your findings — they follow the Fix-First flow (auto-fixed if mechanical, batched into ASK if not) (A: Fix it now, B: Acknowledge, C: False positive). If the user chooses A (fix), reply using the **Fix reply template** from greptile-triage.md (include inline diff + explanation). If the user chooses C (false positive), reply using the **False Positive reply template** (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history.

2. **FALSE POSITIVE comments:** Present each one via AskUserQuestion:
   - Show the Greptile comment: file:line (or [top-level]) + body summary + permalink URL
   - Explain concisely why it's a false positive
   - Options:
     - A) Reply to Greptile explaining why this is incorrect (recommended if clearly wrong)
     - B) Fix it anyway (if low-effort and harmless)
     - C) Ignore — don't reply, don't fix

   If the user chooses A, reply using the **False Positive reply template** from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history.

3. **VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED comments:** Reply using the **Already Fixed reply template** from greptile-triage.md — no AskUserQuestion needed:
   - Include what was done and the fixing commit SHA
   - Save to both per-project and global greptile-history

4. **SUPPRESSED comments:** Skip silently — these are known false positives from previous triage.

---

## Step 5.5: TODOS cross-reference

Read `TODOS.md` in the repository root (if it exists). Cross-reference the PR against open TODOs:

- **Does this PR close any open TODOs?** If yes, note which items in your output: "This PR addresses TODO: <title>"
- **Does this PR create work that should become a TODO?** If yes, flag it as an informational finding.
- **Are there related TODOs that provide context for this review?** If yes, reference them when discussing related findings.

If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip this step silently.

---

## Step 5.6: Documentation staleness check

Cross-reference the diff against documentation files. For each `.md` file in the repo root (README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, CLAUDE.md, etc.):

1. Check if code changes in the diff affect features, components, or workflows described in that doc file.
2. If the doc file was NOT updated in this branch but the code it describes WAS changed, flag it as an INFORMATIONAL finding:
   "Documentation may be stale: [file] describes [feature/component] but code changed in this branch. Consider running `/document-release`."

This is informational only — never critical. The fix action is `/document-release`.

If no documentation files exist, skip this step silently.

---

{{ADVERSARIAL_STEP}}

## Step 5.8: Persist Eng Review result

After all review passes complete, persist the final `/review` outcome so `/ship` can
recognize that Eng Review was run on this branch.

Run:

```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","issues_found":N,"critical":N,"informational":N,"quality_score":SCORE,"specialists":SPECIALISTS_JSON,"findings":FINDINGS_JSON,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
```

Substitute:
- `TIMESTAMP` = ISO 8601 datetime
- `STATUS` = `"clean"` if there are no remaining unresolved findings after Fix-First handling and adversarial review, otherwise `"issues_found"`
- `issues_found` = total remaining unresolved findings
- `critical` = remaining unresolved critical findings
- `informational` = remaining unresolved informational findings
- `quality_score` = the PR Quality Score computed in Step 4.6 (e.g., 7.5). If specialists were skipped (small diff), use `10.0`
- `specialists` = the per-specialist stats object compiled in Step 4.6. Each specialist that was considered gets an entry: `{"dispatched":true/false,"findings":N,"critical":N,"informational":N}` if dispatched, or `{"dispatched":false,"reason":"scope|gated"}` if skipped. Include Design specialist. Example: `{"testing":{"dispatched":true,"findings":2,"critical":0,"informational":2},"security":{"dispatched":false,"reason":"scope"}}`
- `findings` = array of per-finding records from Step 5. For each finding (from critical pass and specialists), include: `{"fingerprint":"path:line:category","severity":"CRITICAL|INFORMATIONAL","action":"ACTION"}`. ACTION is `"auto-fixed"` (Step 5b), `"fixed"` (user approved in Step 5d), or `"skipped"` (user chose Skip in Step 5c). Suppressed findings from Step 5.0 are NOT included (they were already recorded in a prior review entry).
- `COMMIT` = output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`

{{LEARNINGS_LOG}}

If the review exits early before a real review completes (for example, no diff against the base branch), do **not** write this entry.

## Important Rules

- **Read the FULL diff before commenting.** Do not flag issues already addressed in the diff.
- **Fix-first, not read-only.** AUTO-FIX items are applied directly. ASK items are only applied after user approval. Never commit, push, or create PRs — that's /ship's job.
- **Be terse.** One line problem, one line fix. No preamble.
- **Only flag real problems.** Skip anything that's fine.
- **Use Greptile reply templates from greptile-triage.md.** Every reply includes evidence. Never post vague replies.
