---

name: review-changes description: Reviews uncommitted git changes for errors, inconsistencies, and problems. Use before committing to catch issues. allowed-tools: all

Review Uncommitted Changes

Reviews all uncommitted git changes (staged + unstaged + untracked) for errors and inconsistencies before committing.

This is a review-only skill. Do NOT auto-fix anything. Present findings and let the user decide what to fix.

Process

1. Gather all changes

cd E:\code\obsidian\websites\disease-eradication-plan

# Staged changes
git diff --cached --name-status

# Unstaged changes
git diff --name-status

# Untracked files
git status --porcelain

Also run git diff and git diff --cached (without --name-status) to see the actual line-level changes for review.

2. Categorize changed files

Group every changed file into one of these categories:

Category	File Patterns
Parameters	dih_models/parameters.py
Variables YAML	_variables.yml
QMD content	knowledge/**/*.qmd, index.qmd
Quarto config	_quarto*.yml, _book.yml
Project config	CLAUDE.md, OUTLINE.md, todo.md
Python scripts	scripts/**/*.py
TypeScript scripts	scripts/**/*.ts
Generated figures	knowledge/figures/*.qmd
Generated analysis	_analysis/*, dih_models/parameters-calculations-citations.ts, dih_models/reference_ids.py
Assets	assets/**/*
Other	Everything else

3. Review each category

Parameters (dih_models/parameters.py)

• Read the diff. For each added/modified parameter check:
  • Name follows SCOPE_METRIC_MODIFIERS convention (all caps, underscores)
  • Has required fields: value, unit, description
  • unit reads naturally in prose (not "count")
  • Calculated parameters use formulas, not hardcoded values
  • source_type is set correctly: "external", "calculated", or "definition"
  • Constitutional constants use distribution="fixed"
  • Raw values stored (not pre-scaled like 519 for millions)
  • No duplicate names (grep for the parameter name)

Variables YAML (_variables.yml)

• If parameters.py was also changed, check: were variables regenerated?
  • Look for corresponding new entries in _variables.yml for new parameters
  • If parameters changed but _variables.yml didn't, flag as error: "Variables not regenerated after parameter changes"

QMD content files

For each changed QMD, read the diff and check:

• Variable references: Every {{< var NAME >}} must exist in _variables.yml. Grep to verify.
• Cross-references: Links like [text](../path/to/file.qmd) must point to existing files
• Em-dashes: Flag any --- used as em-dashes (the project bans em-dashes)
• LaTeX blocks: No {{< var >}} inside $$ blocks (Quarto variables don't work there)
• Link extensions: Internal links must use .qmd not .html
• Variables inside links: [{{< var x >}}](url) is wrong (variables have built-in links)
• Citation keys: Every @citation_key should exist in references.bib
• Redundancy in changed sections: Read the full changed file (not just the diff) and check for:
  • Repeated paragraphs or sentences that say the same thing in different words
  • The same statistic or claim stated multiple times in the file
  • Sections that substantially overlap and could be merged
  • Equations or LaTeX blocks that duplicate what a _latex variable already provides
  • Boilerplate or filler text that adds no information Flag redundancies as warning with the duplicated content locations and a suggestion for which instance to keep or how to merge

Quarto config (_quarto*.yml, _book.yml)

• Valid YAML syntax
• Chapter paths point to existing files
• No duplicate chapter entries

Project config (CLAUDE.md, OUTLINE.md)

• No contradictions with existing documented rules
• Formatting is consistent

Python scripts

• UTF-8 encoding header present (check for sys.stdout.reconfigure(encoding='utf-8') on Windows)
• Valid Python syntax: python -c "import ast; ast.parse(open('FILE').read())"
• No bare try/except blocks (project rule: let errors crash loudly)

TypeScript scripts

• Valid syntax (check for obvious issues in diff)

Generated files (figures/, _analysis/, parameters-calculations-citations.ts, reference_ids.py)

• Do NOT review content of auto-generated files
• Only check: if parameters.py changed, were these regenerated too?
• If generated files are in the diff but parameters.py is NOT, flag as warning: "Generated files appear to be manually edited"

4. Deletion review

For every deleted file (D in git status), check:

• Was it replaced? Look for a new file serving the same purpose (renamed, restructured). If a clear replacement exists, note it as info.
• Dangling references? Grep all QMD and YAML files for the deleted filename or its stem. Flag remaining references as errors.
• Content loss? For deleted content files (not auto-generated), read the deleted content with git show HEAD:path/to/file and assess whether the information was moved elsewhere or truly removed. Flag substantive content deletion without replacement as a warning.
• Deleted parameters: If parameters were removed from parameters.py, check whether the analysis they supported was also removed or restructured. Flag orphaned analysis sections that reference deleted parameters.

For large line removals within modified files (visible in git diff), check:

• Was removed content moved to another file, or was it genuinely cut?
• If a section was deleted, does the surrounding text still flow logically?
• Were removed citations/references still needed by other sections?

5. Duplicate detection

Duplicate parameters (dih_models/parameters.py)

Check the full file (not just the diff) for parameters that overlap or could be merged:

# Find all parameter names
grep -n "^[A-Z_]* = Parameter(" dih_models/parameters.py

Look for:

• Identical names (Python would silently overwrite the first)
• Near-duplicate names that likely measure the same thing (e.g., GLOBAL_WAR_COST vs GLOBAL_ANNUAL_WAR_TOTAL_COST)
• Same value, different names -- two parameters with the same numeric value and unit that could be consolidated
• Overlapping scope -- parameters whose descriptions suggest they cover the same concept from different angles

Flag duplicates as warning with both parameter names and their values.

Duplicate references (references.bib)

Check for duplicate or near-duplicate BibTeX entries:

# Find all citation keys
grep -n "^@" references.bib

Look for:

• Identical citation keys (BibTeX would use the last one silently)
• Same URL in multiple entries -- different keys pointing to the same source
• Same title/author with different keys (likely accidental duplicates)

Flag duplicates as warning with both entry keys and what they share.

6. Cross-file consistency checks

• New parameters without variables: Any new parameter in parameters.py should have a corresponding entry in _variables.yml
• New QMD variable refs without parameters: Any new {{< var NAME >}} in QMD diffs should reference an existing variable
• Deleted parameters still referenced: If a parameter was removed from parameters.py, grep all QMD files for its variable name
• Citation additions: New @key references in QMD should have matching entries in references.bib

7. Report findings and offer to fix

Present findings as a numbered checklist grouped by severity:

## Review of Uncommitted Changes

### Files Changed
- X modified, Y added, Z deleted

### Errors (must fix before commit)
1. [ ] description of error -- file:line
2. [ ] description of error -- file:line

### Warnings (should probably fix)
3. [ ] description of warning -- file:line
4. [ ] description of warning -- file:line

### Info (consider reviewing)
5. [ ] description -- file:line

### Auto-generated files
- Regenerated: yes/no (list which ones)

### Summary
X errors, Y warnings, Z info items

After presenting the report, use AskUserQuestion to ask:

"Which items would you like me to fix? Select by number, or choose 'All errors', 'All errors + warnings', or 'None (just commit)'."

Options:

• "All errors" -- fix all error-severity items
• "All errors + warnings" -- fix errors and warnings
• "Pick specific items" -- user provides numbers
• "None" -- skip fixes

If the user selects items to fix, enter plan mode and create a fix plan covering only the selected items. Present the plan for approval before making any changes.

Severity guide:

Severity	Criteria
Error	Will break render, wrong values, missing references, syntax errors, duplicates
Warning	Style violations, potential inconsistencies, missing regeneration, content loss
Info	Suggestions, minor style notes, things to double-check

Known Non-Issues (Do NOT Flag)

• Hardcoded values in Quarto YAML config abstracts/descriptions (_quarto-*.yml). These fields use hardcoded numbers instead of {{< var >}} references intentionally. Quarto variables don't render in YAML metadata consumed by search engines, social previews, and PDF front matter. The yaml_sync_utils.py script auto-syncs these values from _variables.yml, so they stay current without manual maintenance.
• CRLF line ending warnings from git. This is a Windows development environment. Git's core.autocrlf handles normalization. Ignore CRLF/LF warnings in git diff output.

Important Rules

• Read diffs, not full files for most checks. Focus on what changed.
• Full file scan for duplicates. Duplicate detection (step 5) requires reading the full parameters.py and references.bib, not just diffs.
• Skip auto-generated file content. Only verify they were regenerated if parameters changed.
• Do NOT fix anything during the review phase. Report only. Fixes happen after user selects items.
• Be specific. Include file paths and line numbers for every finding.
• Use parallel Task agents for independent checks (e.g., checking multiple QMD files simultaneously).