Review Code

SOLID Code Review

Overview

Perform a structured review of the current git changes with focus on SOLID, architecture, removal candidates, and security risks. Default to review-only output unless the user asks to implement changes.

Conventions

• Read capy knowledge base conventions at shared-capy-knowledge-protocol.md.
• Read profile detection — the set of reference checklists loaded for a given diff — at shared-profile-detection.md. The workflow below invokes it in Step 2 and uses the resulting (profile, checklist) list to drive Steps 3–4.

Required Outputs

Before declaring the review complete, verify all outputs are delivered:

• [ ] Review report presented to user
• [ ] P0/P1 systemic findings indexed as kk:review-findings (skip if no qualifying findings)
• [ ] Next steps confirmation from user

Indexing is owned by this skill — callers (e.g., /kk:implement) do NOT duplicate it.

Review Modes

Standard Mode (/kk:review-code)

Reviews code in the main conversation context. Fast, single-pass review using the workflow below.

Isolated Mode (/kk:review-code:isolated)

Delegates detection to independent reviewers that did not write the code, then annotates their findings with author context. Two parallel reviewers: a code-reviewer sub-agent and pal codereview (external model in native format). Produces a report organized by agreement level with corroborated findings highlighted.

• Cost: Higher (sub-agent + external model + annotation)
• Isolation: True — reviewers have zero authorship bias or session context
• Degradation: Graceful — if one reviewer fails, proceeds with the other; if both fail, suggests standard mode fallback
• Best for: When extra rigor is worth the cost (pre-merge, high-stakes changes)

See review-isolated.md for the isolated workflow.

Severity Levels

| Level | Name | Description | Action |

| ------ | -------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |

| P0 | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge |

| P1 | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |

| P2 | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |

| P3 | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |

Workflow

Mandatory ordering — methodology before evidence

The workflow below is strictly sequential. Do not read the diff's contents, re-read changed files, run capy_search, or begin forming findings until you have completed profile detection and loaded every resolved checklist file. Until then, your only contact with the changes is git diff --stat (filenames only) — enough to drive profile detection, but not enough to pattern-match findings.

This ordering is load-bearing, not stylistic. Reviewing from a diff before loading profile checklists is the known failure mode this skill is designed to prevent: the LLM has enough from the diff to produce plausible findings, and optimizes away the methodology if the workflow permits.

Phases (summary — the detailed procedure in review-process.md breaks presentation into three distinct numbered steps: present results, next-steps confirmation, verify outputs):

• Scope — git diff --stat for filenames only (no content reads)
• Detect active profiles — delegate to shared-profile-detection.md; produce the list of (profile, checklist) records
• Load profile review indexes — for each active profile, resolve its review-code/index.md; collect always-load + filename-evaluable conditionals now; defer content-evaluable conditionals to Step 6
• Read resolved checklists — read every (profile, checklist) file collected in Step 3 into context
• Read the diff and re-read changed files — now, with methodology loaded; also run capy_search for kk:review-findings and kk:lang-idioms
• Resolve content-evaluable conditional entries — for each deferred entry from Step 3, evaluate the predicate against the file content read in Step 5; load any newly-matching checklists into context
• Apply checklists — iterate the full resolved list (Steps 3 + 6); emit findings grouped by (profile, checklist)
• Self-check and confidence assessment
• Index findings — capy index systemic P0/P1 patterns as kk:review-findings

10. Present results with next steps

See review-process.md for the detailed step-by-step process.

Invocation

Standard mode:

/kk:review-code

Isolated mode with independent sub-agents:

/kk:review-code:isolated