---
id: gh-review
name: "review"
url: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/gh-review
author: mattpocock
domain: ai-code-generation-quality
tags: ["code-review", "code-quality", "standards", "specifications", "ai-agent"]
install_count: 90900
rating: 4.70 (120 reviews)
github: https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/in-progress/review
---

# review

> 此技能能够对代码变更进行深入的双轴审查，一方面评估代码是否严格遵循项目既定的编码标准和最佳实践，另一方面核查代码实现是否与原始需求文档（如PRD或Issue）完全匹配。它通过启动两个独立的并行子代理来执行这些审查，有效避免了上下文污染，并最终将两者的发现汇总成一份清晰的报告。这不仅显著提升了代码审查的效率和准确性，还能在开发早期发现潜在问题，从而大幅降低返工成本，确保软件质量和项目按时交付。

**Stats**: 90,900 installs · 4.7/5 (120 reviews)

## Before / After 对比

### 代码审查效率

**Before**:

在没有此技能之前，开发者需要手动逐行审查代码，耗费大量时间比对编码标准和需求文档，审查过程效率低下且容易遗漏问题，导致项目延期和返工。

**After**:

该 Skill 能够自动并行审查代码的规范性和需求符合性，快速识别潜在问题，显著缩短审查周期，提高代码质量和开发效率，减少人工干预。

| Metric | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 审查时长 | 120分钟 | 10分钟 | -91% |

## Readme

Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:

- **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?

Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills` if `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing.

## Process

### 1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.

### 2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.
2. A path the user passed as an argument.
3. A PRD/spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.
4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".

### 3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for both.

**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:

- The full diff command and commit list.
- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:

- The diff command and commit list.
- The path or fetched contents of the spec.
- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.

### 5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

## Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**
- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.


---
*Source: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/gh-review*
*Markdown mirror: https://skills.yangsir.net/api/skill/gh-review/markdown*