lichens-innovation/review-code-changes

Review Code Changes

Reviews code changes to ensure they improve code quality, maintainability, and readability without introducing regressions. Supports multiple scope modes: explicitly mentioned files, git staged files, or branch comparisons.

Scope Resolution

Before reviewing, determine the scope of files to review. The skill supports three modes:

1. Explicitly Mentioned Files

Indicators:

• File paths explicitly mentioned in the user's request (e.g., "review src/components/Button.tsx")
• Files listed in the request (e.g., "review these files: utils.ts, helpers.ts")
• References to specific files in the message

Resolution:

• Extract file paths from the user's request
• Verify files exist in the workspace
• Read the current content of the files
• Optionally: if files are tracked in git, obtain diff against HEAD or a specific branch for context

Git commands (optional, for diff context):

git diff HEAD <file-path>           # Diff against HEAD
git diff <branch> <file-path>       # Diff against specific branch
git diff --name-only <file-path>    # Check if file is tracked

2. Git Staged Files

Indicators:

• Keywords: "staged", "staged changes", "git staged", "before commit"
• User preparing to commit changes
• Context suggests reviewing what's in the staging area

Resolution:

• Check for staged files: git diff --cached --name-only
• If no files staged: inform the user that there are no staged changes to review
• If files staged: obtain the diff with git diff --cached

Git commands:

git diff --cached                    # Full diff of staged changes
git diff --cached --name-only        # List of staged files
git diff --cached --stat             # Statistics of staged changes

3. Branch Comparison

Indicators:

• Keywords: "branch", "compare", "diff between", "vs", "against"
• Branch names mentioned in the request
• Context of PR/merge request review

Resolution:

• Identify branches from the request:
  • If two branches mentioned: use both explicitly
  • If one branch mentioned: compare with default branch (main/master) or current branch
  • If no branch mentioned but in PR context: deduce from current branch
• Get current branch: git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD
• Determine base branch (usually main/master): check common patterns or use git show-branch
• Obtain diff between branches: git diff <base-branch>..<head-branch>

Git commands:

git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD      # Current branch name
git diff <branch1>..<branch2>        # Diff between two branches
git diff <branch1>..<branch2> --name-only  # List of changed files
git diff <branch1>..<branch2> --stat # Statistics
git merge-base <branch1> <branch2>   # Common ancestor
git show-branch | grep '*' | grep -v "$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)" | head -1 | sed 's/.*\[\(.*\)\].*/\1/' | sed 's/[\^~].*//'  # Infer parent branch

Priority Order

When multiple indicators are present, use this priority:

1. Explicitly mentioned files — Highest priority if files are explicitly mentioned
2. Branch comparison — If branches are mentioned, compare those branches
3. Staged files — If no files/branches mentioned, check for staged files
4. Fallback — If scope cannot be determined, ask the user for clarification

Scope Validation

After determining the scope:

1. Verify scope is not empty

   • If no files found: inform the user clearly
   • If branch doesn't exist: report error with branch name
   • If files don't exist: report error with file paths

2. Display scope summary

   • Show which mode was used
   • List files that will be reviewed
   • For branch comparison: show branch names and number of changed files

3. Handle edge cases

   • Large diffs: consider using --stat first to show overview, then full diff
   • Many files: process in batches if needed
   • Ambiguous requests: confirm with user before proceeding

Workflow

When reviewing code changes:

1. Resolve scope — Follow the "Scope Resolution" section above to determine which files to review
2. Obtain changes — Get the diff or file content based on the resolved scope:
   • For explicitly mentioned files: read file content (and optionally diff if tracked in git)
   • For staged files: git diff --cached
   • For branch comparison: git diff <base>..<head>
3. Analyze each change against the four criteria below
4. Provide structured feedback using the template in this skill: templates/review-summary.md (relative to the skill directory)

Review Criteria

1. Contextual Sense

Verify changes align with the stated purpose:

• Do the modifications address the intended goal?
• Are related changes grouped logically?
• Is the scope appropriate (not too broad, not too narrow)?
• Are any unrelated changes included that should be in a separate commit?

2. Regression Prevention

Identify potential breaking changes:

• Behavior changes: Does the code behave differently than before?
• API changes: Are function signatures, props, or interfaces modified?
• Side effects: Could changes affect other parts of the codebase?
• Dependencies: Are imports, dependencies, or external integrations affected?
• Edge cases: Are existing edge cases still handled correctly?

Red flags:

• Removing error handling without replacement
• Changing return types or function signatures
• Modifying shared utilities without checking usages
• Removing validation or checks
• Changing default values that other code might depend on

3. Maintainability & Evolvability

Assess long-term code health:

• Structure: Is code better organized (extracted functions, clearer modules)?
• Complexity: Is cyclomatic complexity reduced?
• Coupling: Are dependencies reduced or better managed?
• Testability: Is code easier to test (pure functions, dependency injection)?
• Documentation: Are complex parts documented?
• Patterns: Are established patterns followed consistently?

Signs of improvement:

• Extracting reusable utilities
• Reducing nested conditionals
• Breaking large functions into smaller ones
• Using consistent naming conventions
• Following project architecture patterns

4. Readability

Evaluate code clarity:

• Naming: Are variables, functions, and types clearly named?
• Structure: Is code flow easy to follow?
• Comments: Are comments helpful (explain "why", not "what")?
• Formatting: Is code consistently formatted?
• Magic numbers: Are constants extracted and named?

Signs of improvement:

• More descriptive variable names
• Reduced nesting levels
• Clearer control flow
• Better type annotations
• Consistent code style

Common Patterns to Check

Refactoring Patterns

Good refactoring:

• Extract function → Verify all call sites updated
• Rename variable → Verify all references updated
• Move code → Verify imports and dependencies updated

Risky refactoring:

• Changing shared utilities without checking all usages
• Modifying type definitions without updating consumers
• Removing "unused" code that might be used dynamically

Code Quality Improvements

Verify improvements are real:

• Not just moving code around
• Actually reducing complexity
• Actually improving readability
• Making code more testable, not just prettier

Readability Improvements

Ensure clarity gains:

• Names are actually more descriptive
• Structure is genuinely easier to follow
• Comments add value, not noise

When to Flag Issues

Flag changes if:

• Critical: Changes break existing functionality or introduce bugs
• Warning: Changes might cause issues or reduce maintainability
• Suggestion: Changes could be improved but aren't problematic

Provide specific examples from the diff when flagging issues.