# Nova Review

> Unified canonical review Skill. Apply LEVEL and MODE to review depth and output shape; no code modification.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-lliangcol-llm-plugins-fusion-nova-review`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [lliangcol](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/lliangcol)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [lliangcol](https://github.com/lliangcol)
- **Source:** https://github.com/lliangcol/llm-plugins-fusion/tree/main/nova-plugin/skills/nova-review

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-lliangcol-llm-plugins-fusion-nova-review
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

## Shared Execution Policy

This file is the supporting behavioral contract for `/nova-plugin:review` and the deprecated `/nova-plugin:nova-review` compatibility entrypoint. Prefer the direct command; the compatibility name remains only for the current major-version migration window.

- Resolve natural-language and explicit `KEY=value` inputs using `../_shared/parameter-resolution.md`; explicit non-conflicting values take precedence.
- Apply `../_shared/safety-preflight.md` before side effects. Never infer approval, destructive scope, credentials, or output destinations.
- Follow `../_shared/output-contracts.md` and `../_shared/artifact-policy.md`; report completed, skipped, and blocked validation truthfully.
- Respect the frontmatter tool boundary. Missing inputs, unavailable dependencies, overlapping user changes, or repository-policy conflicts are blockers rather than permission to broaden scope.

## Execution

1. Parse `$ARGUMENTS` against the workflow-specific inputs below.
2. Read only the context required for the requested scope.
3. Apply the workflow contract and its strict output format.
4. Stop before unauthorized side effects; otherwise validate in proportion to risk and report residual risk.

## Workflow Contract

> Generated from `workflow-specs/behaviors.v2.json`. This block is authoritative. Run `node scripts/generate-behavior-surfaces.mjs --write` after changing the IR; if explanatory text below conflicts, fail closed.

### Generated Behavior Index

- **Purpose:** Perform evidence-grounded code or design review at the requested depth and output mode without implementation.
- **Canonical inputs:** `REVIEW_SCOPE`(required aliases=INPUT,SCOPE); `LEVEL`(optional aliases=DEPTH default="standard" exact="lite","standard","strict"); `MODE`(optional default="full" exact="full","findings-only"); `REVIEW_PROFILE`(optional default="general" exact="general","plan","codex-review-only","codex-verify-only")
- **Decision entries:** 7; canonical routes and variants: `review {"REVIEW_PROFILE":"plan"}`, `review {"REVIEW_PROFILE":"codex-review-only"}`, `review {"REVIEW_PROFILE":"codex-verify-only"}`, `review {"MODE":"findings-only"}`, `review {"LEVEL":"lite"}`, `review {"LEVEL":"standard"}`, `review {"LEVEL":"strict"}`.
- **Workflow steps:** `resolve-scope` → `route` → `inspect` → `emit`
- **Output:** mode=`chat`; order=`findings` → `impact rationale` → `directional guidance`; severity=`Critical`, `Major`, `Minor`.
- **Deviation/failure:** mode=`forbid`; failure order=`status` → `missing input` → `allowed values` → `safe next action`.
- **Full IR:** `runtime/contracts/review.json#behaviorContract` embeds the complete decision table, invariants, stops, field definitions, validation, and failure contract from the same source. Detailed guidance below may not override it.

### Purpose

Provide structured review findings for code/design artifacts through one
canonical surface, with depth and output shape selected by parameters.

### Inputs

| Parameter | Required | Default    | Notes                  | Example                 |
| --------- | -------- | ---------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------- |
| `LEVEL` | No | `standard` | `lite`, `standard`, or `strict` | `lite` |
| `MODE` | No | `full` | `full` or `findings-only` | `findings-only` |
| `REVIEW_SCOPE` | Yes | N/A | Review target content; `INPUT` and `SCOPE` are accepted aliases | `PR diff / module code` |

### Outputs

- `MODE=full`: complete review output at the selected `LEVEL`.
- `MODE=findings-only`: stop after prioritized findings at the selected `LEVEL`.
- `standard` and `strict` use severity buckets through `Critical`, `Major`, `Minor`.
- Directional suggestions only.

### Workflow

1. Parse scope, `LEVEL`, and `MODE`.
2. Keep the selected identity as canonical `nova-review`; apply depth and
   output shape as structured parameters.
3. Emit findings with impact rationale, stopping after findings when
   `MODE=findings-only`.

### Examples

- Natural trigger: `Use review on this core module change.`
- Explicit trigger: `review LEVEL=standard INPUT="inventory service diff"`.

### Safety

- No implementation patches.
- Clearly label facts vs assumptions.

## Detailed Contract

### CODE REVIEW (NO IMPLEMENTATION)

You are Claude Code acting as a **senior engineer / tech lead reviewer**.

This command is for **analysis and review only**.
You MUST NOT write, modify, or propose concrete code changes.

---

#### INPUT PARAMETERS

From `$ARGUMENTS`, extract the following:

##### LEVEL (Optional)

Choose the review depth level:

- `lite` → Lightweight PR-style review with concise findings
- `standard` (default) → Normal code review with Critical/Major/Minor findings
- `strict` → Exhaustive high-stakes audit for production-critical code

If not specified, use `standard` level.

LEVEL:

##### MODE (Optional)

- `full` (default) → Complete review output at the selected depth
- `findings-only` → Stop after prioritized findings; do not add implementation

MODE:

##### REVIEW_SCOPE (Required)

The code, design, or content to review.

REVIEW_SCOPE:
$ARGUMENTS

---

#### EXECUTION RULES

You MUST:

- Review only what is provided
- Base findings on observable evidence or reasonable inference
- Clearly distinguish facts from assumptions

You MUST NOT:

- Write or modify code
- Provide full implementation examples
- Redesign the system
- Expand scope beyond the reviewed content

---

#### REVIEW DIMENSIONS

Review the input comprehensively for:

##### Lite level:

- Obvious correctness bugs
- Missing checks or tests likely to matter
- High-signal maintainability risks

##### Standard level:

- Correctness
- Overengineering or unnecessary complexity
- Performance issues
- Concurrency / thread safety risks
- Error handling and failure modes
- Test coverage and test quality
- Maintainability and long-term readability

##### Additional for strict level:

- API or module boundary clarity
- Long-term evolution risks
- Security vulnerabilities
- Data integrity risks
- Operational resilience

---

#### OUTPUT FORMAT (MANDATORY)

Group all findings by severity:

##### Critical

Issues that may cause:

- Data corruption
- Security or financial risk
- Production instability
- Incorrect business behavior

##### Major

Issues that:

- Significantly affect maintainability, scalability, or correctness
- May lead to bugs under realistic conditions
- Increase long-term cost
- Limit scalability or testability (strict level)

##### Minor

Issues that:

- Affect readability or consistency
- Represent missed best practices
- Are low risk but worth addressing

For each finding:

- Clearly describe the issue
- Explain why it matters
- Provide **directional improvement suggestions**
  - Suggestions must be conceptual or directional
  - NOT code-level implementations

---

#### TONE & STYLE

##### Standard level:

- Neutral
- Precise
- Review-oriented
- No persuasive or defensive language

##### Strict level:

- Critical but constructive
- More detailed justification for each finding
- Assumes production-critical context
- Failure-cost aware

Assume the reader is:

- The original author
- A tech lead
- Or a future maintainer

---

#### NON-GOALS

This command does NOT:

- Approve or reject the change
- Decide release readiness
- Replace human code review
- Implement fixes

It only **evaluates and documents issues**.

---

#### 4.0 VARIANT PROFILES

- `LEVEL=lite|standard|strict` selects review depth without changing the canonical surface.
- `MODE=findings-only` replaces the output boundary formerly inferred from `review-only`.
- `/nova-plugin:review-only` remains a direct 4.x compatibility invocation with `LEVEL=standard MODE=findings-only`; automatic routing must not select the alias.
- `REVIEW_PROFILE=plan` replaces `plan-review`.
- `REVIEW_PROFILE=codex-review-only|codex-verify-only` uses the retained compatibility assets under `skills/nova-codex-review-fix/` and requires explicit shell, network, and assistant-owned authentication approval.

All review variants remain non-implementation workflows and must not modify project files.

#### END OF COMMAND

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [lliangcol](https://github.com/lliangcol)
- **Source:** [lliangcol/llm-plugins-fusion](https://github.com/lliangcol/llm-plugins-fusion)
- **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-lliangcol-llm-plugins-fusion-nova-review
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/lliangcol
- 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%.