Review SPD
You are executing the Review SPD workflow: a findings-first review of changed code. Identify bugs, regressions, and behavior risks introduced by the changes. Do not turn this into a style review or a broad summary.
Configuration
| Item | Default | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Context script | scripts/review-context.py relative to this Review SPD skill directory | Collect stable git context |
| Default target | Uncommitted changes | Working tree + staged changes |
| Commit range default | Last 3 days | Only when the user requests commit/date review without dates |
| PR base | Auto-detect origin/main, origin/master, then remote default branch | Base for branch-vs-main review |
| Output style | Findings first | Findings by severity before summaries |
References: reviewer sub-agent template references/reviewer-template.md; final output format references/output-format.md.
Target Modes
Three mutually exclusive targets:
- Uncommitted mode (default)
- Commit-range mode — no explicit range → last 3 days
- Branch / PR mode — branch vs. main or explicit
base
Conflict priority: branch specified → branch mode; else since/until → commit-range mode; else uncommitted. base applies only to branch mode. Vague requests ("review this") → uncommitted mode; "recent commits" without dates → --since "3 days ago".
Phase 1: Target Resolution
Resolve the context script from the installed Review SPD skill directory, not from the repository being reviewed:
bashpython <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --since "3 days ago" python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --since 2026-06-28 --until 2026-07-01 python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --branch feature/foo python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --branch feature/foo --base origin/main
When reviewing this repository itself, the convenience wrapper scripts/review-context.py is also available.
Phase 2: Context Collection
Run the script with cwd = the repository under review (it cd's to the git root itself). The script only collects git context; it does not judge correctness. From its output identify: review mode and base/head, commit list (if any), changed files and diff stats, added/deleted/renamed files, and the unified diff hunks needing semantic review.
If the script reports no changes, stop and say there is nothing to review. Do not invent findings.
Phase 3: Review Planning
Classify review size:
- Small (≤3 files, localized diff): cover Correctness + Tests.
- Medium (multiple files / behavior-affecting): add Regression/Compatibility.
- Large or high-risk (broad changes, auth/permissions, persistence, migrations, concurrency, caching, money, security, public APIs, generated code, config/deployment): add Security/Data Safety + Performance/Concurrency.
Prioritize behavior code, public contracts, data handling, error paths, configuration, persistence, tests. Deprioritize docs, formatting-only changes, generated files, lockfile churn unless they affect runtime behavior.
Phase 4: Sub-Agent Review
If the platform supports sub-agents, spawn focused reviewers using references/reviewer-template.md; otherwise perform the same focused reviews sequentially yourself. Coverage must not shrink without sub-agents.
Reviewer focuses:
- Correctness / Bug Risk: logic errors, edge cases, state consistency, exception paths, invalid assumptions.
- Regression / Compatibility: changed API contracts, config behavior, data formats, migrations, CLI behavior, backward compatibility.
- Tests / Verification: missing tests for changed behavior, weak assertions, stale tests, untested failure modes.
- Security / Data Safety: authorization, validation, injection, secrets, destructive operations, data loss, privacy.
- Performance / Concurrency: async races, caching errors, resource leaks, excessive work, ordering bugs.
Each reviewer returns only evidence-backed candidate findings for its own focus.
Phase 5: Finding Consolidation
Merge reviewer outputs into one findings list:
- Every finding must be supported by the diff or directly relevant context, with a file:line reference when possible.
- No style preferences, speculative rewrites, or generic best practices unless they create a concrete bug risk.
- Incomplete evidence → move to
QuestionsorResidual Risks, notFindings. - Deduplicate overlaps; keep the clearest impact statement.
- Order by severity: Critical, High, Medium, Low.
Severity guide:
- Critical: data loss, security bypass, production outage, irreversible corruption, severe user impact likely.
- High: clear bug/regression in a common or important path.
- Medium: edge-path bug, compatibility break, missing validation, or test gap likely to hide regressions.
- Low: minor bug risk, confusing behavior, narrow edge case, maintainability issue with direct defect potential.
Phase 6: Final Response
Use references/output-format.md. Findings are the primary focus: present them first, keep summaries brief, never bury a bug below a summary. No findings → explicitly state No findings and include residual risks or testing gaps.
Review Discipline
- Think like a code reviewer, not a feature planner: does the change introduce new bugs?
- Verify claims against code context before reporting.
- Prefer one strong finding over many weak suggestions.
- Do not modify files unless the user explicitly asks you to fix the findings.
- If tests/builds are needed to validate a suspected issue, name the exact command or missing coverage.
