---

name: review description: > Review branch changes for quality and standards compliance. Use when "review", "check code", "PR review", or "code quality".

Review Skill

Reviews GitButler branch changes, producing PR-style feedback.

Syntax

/review              # Auto-detect branch from context or first with commits
/review <branch>     # Specific GitButler branch

Workflow

Step 1: Determine Which Branch to Review

Always use GitButler commands, never git diff or gh pr diff.

Argument	Action
<branch>	Use but diff <branch> directly
None	Infer branch (see below)

Branch inference when no argument provided:

1. Check session context - Look at files you've modified this session. Match them against branches via but status to identify the relevant branch.

2. Fall back to branch discovery - If no context clues:

   but branch list
   

   Find the first branch with actual commits (not just changes) and review that one.

3. Report what you're reviewing - Always tell the user which branch you selected and why.

Step 2: Get the Diff and Invoke Code-Reviewer Agent

Get the diff using GitButler, then pass to the code-reviewer agent:

but diff <branch>

Invoke the code-reviewer agent with:

• Scope: [branch name]
• Diff: [output from but diff]
• Files: [extract file paths from the diff output header lines (e.g., "M src/foo.tsx")]
• Context: Branch diff for PR review

Step 3: Display Review

The agent will output PR-comment style feedback:

• Constructive and specific
• Reference file:line for issues
• Explain WHY something is a problem
• Suggest concrete fixes
• Group by severity: Blockers > Issues > Suggestions

Step 4: Detect UI Changes

Check if the branch contains UI-related changes by examining the diff output for:

• Files in app/**/page.tsx, app/**/page.client.tsx
• Files in **/components/**/*.tsx
• Files in components/ui/**
• Tailwind class changes (className with bg-, text-, flex, grid, etc.)
• CSS/style file changes

Set hasUIChanges = true if any UI-related files were modified.

Step 5: Prompt for Action

After displaying the review, use AskUserQuestion to let the user choose next steps.

If hasUIChanges is true, include the design review option:

Question: "UI changes detected. What would you like to do next?"
Header: "Next step"
Options:
  - "Design review" / "Get frontend design quality feedback using /fed"
  - "Continue" / "Proceed without changes"
  - "Run checks" / "Run /pr-check for automated validation"
  - "Fix issues" / "Implement fixes using /fix skill"

If no UI changes, use standard options:

Question: "What would you like to do next?"
Header: "Next step"
Options:
  - "Continue" / "Proceed without changes"
  - "Run checks" / "Run /pr-check for automated validation"
  - "Fix issues" / "Implement fixes using /fix skill"
  - "Create PR" / "Create pull request for this branch"

Then execute the chosen action. For "Design review", invoke /fed with the changed UI files as context.

Review Focus

Based on CLAUDE.md and project rules:

Area	What to Check
Code quality	Best practices, patterns
Bugs	Potential issues, edge cases
Performance	N+1 queries, unnecessary operations
Security	Auth checks, injection, XSS
Tests	Coverage, cleanup, isolation
UI patterns	Semantic colors, shadcn/ui usage, component organization

Note: Code review covers UI patterns (correct usage of components, semantic tokens). For design quality assessment (aesthetics, typography, visual hierarchy), use /fed after the code review.

Output Format

PR-comment style (not rigid template):

## Code Review: [Scope Summary]

### Verdict: [Approved / Changes Requested / Blocked]

[1-2 sentence summary of overall assessment]

### Issues

**[Severity]**: [Category] in `file:line`

[Explanation of why this is a problem]

```suggestion
// Suggested fix

Suggestions

• [Optional improvements that are nice-to-have]

## Verdict Meanings

| Verdict | Meaning | Action |
|---------|---------|--------|
| Approved | Ready to merge | Minor suggestions may be provided |
| Changes Requested | Fix issues first | Must address before merging |
| Blocked | Security/breaking issues | Do not merge |