# Code Review > Performs an architectural and quality code review on a specified file or set of files. Checks for coding standard compliance, architectural pattern adherence, SOLID principles, testability, and performance concerns. - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-bullish0x-gamestudio-code-review` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [bullish0x](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/bullish0x) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [bullish0x](https://github.com/bullish0x) - **Source:** https://github.com/bullish0x/GameStudio/tree/main/.agents/skills/code-review ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-bullish0x-gamestudio-code-review ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About ## Phase 1: Load Target Files Read the target file(s) in full. Read AGENTS.md for project coding standards. --- ## Phase 2: Identify Engine Specialists Read `.agents/docs/technical-preferences.md`, section `## Engine Specialists`. Note: - The **Primary** specialist (used for architecture and broad engine concerns) - The **Language/Code Specialist** (used when reviewing the project's primary language files) - The **Shader Specialist** (used when reviewing shader files) - The **UI Specialist** (used when reviewing UI code) If the section reads `[TO BE CONFIGURED]`, no engine is pinned — skip engine specialist steps. --- ## Phase 3: ADR Compliance Check **Argument:** `/code-review [file(s)]` may optionally include a story file path as the last argument (e.g., `/code-review src/combat/attack.gd production/epics/combat/story-001.md`). If a story path is provided, read it to extract the governing ADR reference. Search for ADR references in, in priority order: 1. The story file (if provided as argument) 2. Header comments at the top of the implementation files 3. Commit messages referencing these files (`git log --oneline -- [file]`) Look for patterns like `ADR-NNN` or `docs/architecture/ADR-`. If no ADR references found, note: "No ADR references found — ADR compliance check skipped. For full ADR compliance review, provide the story path: `/code-review [files] [story-path]`." For each referenced ADR: read the file, extract the **Decision** and **Consequences** sections, then classify any deviation: - **ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION** (BLOCKING): Uses a pattern explicitly rejected in the ADR - **ADR DRIFT** (WARNING): Meaningfully diverges from the chosen approach without using a forbidden pattern - **MINOR DEVIATION** (INFO): Small difference from ADR guidance that doesn't affect overall architecture --- ## Phase 4: Standards Compliance Identify the system category (engine, gameplay, AI, networking, UI, tools) and evaluate: - [ ] Public methods and classes have doc comments - [ ] Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method - [ ] No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations) - [ ] Dependencies are injected (no static singletons for game state) - [ ] Configuration values loaded from data files - [ ] Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies) --- ## Phase 5: Architecture and SOLID **Architecture:** - [ ] Correct dependency direction (engine <- gameplay, not reverse) - [ ] No circular dependencies between modules - [ ] Proper layer separation (UI does not own game state) - [ ] Events/signals used for cross-system communication - [ ] Consistent with established patterns in the codebase **SOLID:** - [ ] Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change - [ ] Open/Closed: Extendable without modification - [ ] Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types - [ ] Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces - [ ] Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions --- ## Phase 6: Game-Specific Concerns - [ ] Frame-rate independence (delta time usage) - [ ] No allocations in hot paths (update loops) - [ ] Proper null/empty state handling - [ ] Thread safety where required - [ ] Resource cleanup (no leaks) --- ## Phase 7: Specialist Reviews (Parallel) Spawn all applicable specialists simultaneously via Task — do not wait for one before starting the next. ### Engine Specialists If an engine is configured, determine which specialist applies to each file and spawn in parallel: - Primary language files (`.gd`, `.cs`, `.cpp`) → Language/Code Specialist - Shader files (`.gdshader`, `.hlsl`, shader graph) → Shader Specialist - UI screen/widget code → UI Specialist - Cross-cutting or unclear → Primary Specialist Also spawn the **Primary Specialist** for any file touching engine architecture (scene structure, node hierarchy, lifecycle hooks). ### QA Testability Review For Logic and Integration stories, also spawn `qa-tester` via Task in parallel with the engine specialists. Pass: - The implementation files being reviewed - The story's `## QA Test Cases` section (the pre-written test specs from qa-lead) - The story's `## Acceptance Criteria` Ask the qa-tester to evaluate: - [ ] Are all test hooks and interfaces exposed (not hidden behind private/internal access)? - [ ] Do the QA test cases from the story's `## QA Test Cases` section map to testable code paths? - [ ] Are any acceptance criteria untestable as implemented (e.g., hardcoded values, no seam for injection)? - [ ] Does the implementation introduce any new edge cases not covered by the existing QA test cases? - [ ] Are there any observable side effects that should have a test but don't? For Visual/Feel and UI stories: qa-tester reviews whether the manual verification steps in `## QA Test Cases` are achievable with the implementation as written — e.g., "is the state the manual checker needs to reach actually reachable?" Collect all specialist findings before producing output. --- ## Phase 8: Output Review ``` ## Code Review: [File/System Name] ### Engine Specialist Findings: [N/A — no engine configured / CLEAN / ISSUES FOUND] [Findings from engine specialist(s), or "No engine configured." if skipped] ### Testability: [N/A — Visual/Feel or Config story / TESTABLE / GAPS / BLOCKING] [qa-tester findings: test hooks, coverage gaps, untestable paths, new edge cases] [If BLOCKING: implementation must expose [X] before tests in ## QA Test Cases can run] ### ADR Compliance: [NO ADRS FOUND / COMPLIANT / DRIFT / VIOLATION] [List each ADR checked, result, and any deviations with severity] ### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing] [List failures with line references] ### Architecture: [CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND] [List specific architectural concerns] ### SOLID: [COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND] [List specific violations] ### Game-Specific Concerns [List game development specific issues] ### Positive Observations [What is done well -- always include this section] ### Required Changes [Must-fix items before approval — ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATIONs always appear here] ### Suggestions [Nice-to-have improvements] ### Verdict: [APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED] ``` This skill is read-only — no files are written. --- ## Phase 9: Next Steps Use `AskUserQuestion`: - Prompt: "Code review complete — verdict: [APPROVED / CHANGES REQUIRED / MAJOR REVISION]. How would you like to proceed?" - Options (adjust based on verdict): - If APPROVED: - `[A] Run /story-done to mark the story complete` - `[B] Stop here` - If CHANGES REQUIRED or MAJOR REVISION: - `[A] Fix the issues and re-run /code-review` - `[B] Run /story-done anyway with noted exceptions` - `[C] Stop here` If an ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION is found: - If the violation contradicts an **existing ADR**: fix the implementation to comply with `docs/architecture/[adr-file].md`. If the design has legitimately changed, run `/architecture-decision` to formally *revise* the existing ADR — do not create a competing one. - If **no ADR exists** for the pattern that was violated: run `/architecture-decision` to document the correct approach before fixing the code. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [bullish0x](https://github.com/bullish0x) - **Source:** [bullish0x/GameStudio](https://github.com/bullish0x/GameStudio) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-bullish0x-gamestudio-code-review - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/bullish0x - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.