Afc:review

/afc:review — Code Review

> Performs a comprehensive review of changed code (quality, security, performance, architecture compliance). > Validates completeness of the review itself with convergence-based Critic Loop.

Arguments

• $ARGUMENTS — (optional) Review scope (file path, PR number, or "staged")
• If not specified: full git diff of current branch (unstaged + staged)

Project Config (auto-loaded)

!cat .claude/afc.config.md 2>/dev/null || echo "[CONFIG NOT FOUND] .claude/afc.config.md not found. Create it with /afc:init."

Config Load

Always read .claude/afc.config.md first — needed for CI Commands (YAML). Architecture, Code Style, and Project Context are auto-loaded via .claude/rules/afc-project.md.

If config file is missing:

1. Ask: ".claude/afc.config.md not found. Run /afc:init?"
2. If user accepts → run /afc:init, then restart with original $ARGUMENTS
3. If user declines → abort

Execution Steps

1. Collect Review Targets

1. Determine scope:

• $ARGUMENTS = file path → that file only
• $ARGUMENTS = PR number → gh pr diff {number}
• $ARGUMENTS = "staged" → git diff --cached
• Not specified → git diff HEAD

1. Extract changed file list; read full content of each file (not just the diff)
2. Load spec context (if available): .claude/afc/specs/{feature}/context.md and spec.md. If neither exists, skip SPEC_ALIGNMENT with note "no spec artifacts available"
3. Build Impact Map — see [Reverse Impact Analysis](perspectives.md#reverse-impact-analysis)

2. Parallel Review (scaled by file count)

Assess complexity holistically: total diff size, file complexity, change diversity, and whether changes are localized or cross-cutting.

Pre-scan for parallel batch / swarm: Before distributing files, collect cross-boundary context — outbound calls between changed files with function signature + 1-line side-effect summary. Include Impact Map. Provide each agent a ## Cross-File Context block. Skip pre-scan for Direct mode.

| Mode | When to use | How | |------|-------------|-----| | Direct | Small diff, single module, fits in context | Review all files in current context | | Parallel batch | Multiple files/modules, substantial diff | 2–3 files per agent, single message | | Swarm | Large-scale, cross-cutting, mixed types | Pre-assigned workers (≤5), single message |

// Parallel batch example
Task("Review: {file1, file2}", subagent_type: "general-purpose")
Task("Review: {file3, file4}", subagent_type: "general-purpose")

> Note: Unlike implement swarm (prohibits self-claiming due to write conflicts), review workers use orchestrator pre-assignment. This is safe — review is read-only.

Collect all worker outputs, then write consolidated review.

2.5. Specialist Agent Delegation (optional, parallel)

When afc-architect and afc-security agents are available, delegate perspectives B and C in a single message:

Task("Architecture Review", subagent_type: "afc:afc-architect",
  prompt: "Review changed files for architecture compliance. Files: {list}. Rules: {config.architecture}. Return: severity, file:line, issue, fix.")

Task("Security Review", subagent_type: "afc:afc-security",
  prompt: "Scan changed files for security vulnerabilities. Files: {list}. Return: severity, file:line, issue, fix.")

Merge agent findings into the consolidated review (Step 4). If agents unavailable: fall back to direct review for B and C.

3. Perform Review

Review each changed file across all 8 perspectives. See [perspectives.md](perspectives.md) for full criteria.

| Perspective | Focus | |-------------|-------| | A. Code Quality | {config.code_style} compliance, naming, duplication, complexity | | B. Architecture | Layer dependency direction, segment rules, placement (agent-enhanced) | | C. Security | XSS, sensitive data exposure, injection (agent-enhanced) | | D. Performance | Latency, redundant computation, resource management | | E. Project Pattern | {config.code_style} + {config.architecture} conventions, framework idioms | | F. Reusability | DRY adherence, extraction opportunities, abstraction level | | G. Maintainability | Unit comprehensibility, naming clarity, self-contained files | | H. Extensibility | Extension points, Open/Closed principle, future modification cost |

3.5. Cross-Boundary Verification (MANDATORY)

After reviews complete, the orchestrator MUST verify behavioral findings across file boundaries. See [Cross-Boundary Verification](perspectives.md#cross-boundary-verification-mandatory) for the full procedure.

4. Review Output

## Code Review Results

### Summary
| Severity | Count | Items |
|----------|-------|-------|
| Critical | {N} | {summary} |
| Warning  | {N} | {summary} |
| Info     | {N} | {summary} |

### Impact Analysis
| Changed File | Affected Files | Method |
|---|---|---|
| {path} | {affected file list} | LSP / Grep |

> ⚠ Dynamic dependencies (runtime dispatch, reflection, cross-language calls) require manual verification.

### Detailed Findings

#### C-{N}: {title}
- **File**: {path}:{line}
- **Issue**: {description}
- **Suggested fix**: {code example}

#### W-{N}: {title}  #### I-{N}: {title}
{same format}

### Positives
- {1-2 things done well}

5. Retrospective Check

If .claude/afc/memory/retrospectives/ exists, load the most recent 10 files (sorted descending) and check:

• Recurring Critical categories from past reviews → prioritize those perspectives
• Past false positives → reduce sensitivity for those patterns

6. Critic Loop

> Always read docs/critic-loop-rules.md first and follow it. Safety cap: 5 passes.

| Criterion | Validation | |-----------|------------| | COMPLETENESS | All changed files reviewed? All perspectives A–H covered? | | SPECALIGNMENT | Every SC satisfied ({M}/{N} SC verified), every GWT scenario has a code path, no spec constraint violated | | SIDEEFFECT_AWARENESS | Behavioral findings (call order, error handling, state mutation) verified against callee implementations. Unverified Critical → auto-downgrade to Info with note. Report {M}/{N} behavioral findings verified | | PRECISION | Findings are actual issues, not false positives |

On FAIL: auto-fix and continue. On ESCALATE: pause, present options, resume. On DEFER: record, mark clean. On CONVERGE: ✓ Critic converged ({N} passes, {M} fixes, {E} escalations). On SAFETY CAP: ⚠ Critic safety cap ({N} passes). Review recommended.

7. Retrospective Entry (if new pattern found)

Append to .claude/afc/memory/retrospectives/{YYYY-MM-DD}.md only when a pattern is new and actionable:

## Pattern: {category}
**What happened**: {concrete description}
**Root cause**: {why this keeps occurring}
**Prevention rule**: {actionable rule}
**Severity**: Critical | Warning

8. Archive Review Report

When inside a pipeline (.claude/afc/specs/{feature}/ exists):

1. Write to .claude/afc/specs/{feature}/review-report.md with metadata header (date, files reviewed, finding counts)
2. This file survives Clean phase (copied to .claude/afc/memory/reviews/{feature}-{date}.md)

Standalone run: display results in console only.

9. Final Output

Review complete
├─ Files: {changed file count}
├─ Found: Critical {N} / Warning {N} / Info {N}
├─ Critic: converged ({N} passes, {M} fixes, {E} escalations)
└─ Conclusion: {one-line summary}

Notes

• Read-only: do not modify code. Report findings only.
• Full context: read the entire file, not just diff lines.
• Avoid false positives: classify uncertain issues as Info.
• Respect patterns: flag against afc.config.md standards, not personal preference.
• NEVER use run_in_background: true on Task calls: review agents must return results before consolidation.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: jhlee0409
• Source: jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://www.npmjs.com/package/all-for-claudecode

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.