code-review

Review code changes

Establish scope

Honor a fixed point supplied by the user. Otherwise infer a sensible comparison from the repository state, such as the default-branch merge-base. Ask only when different choices would materially change the review.

Verify that the ref resolves and inspect the diff and relevant commit messages. Report an empty or unavailable comparison instead of manufacturing findings.

Collect references

Use the repository's actual standards and the originating issue, PRD, or spec when available. Follow repository conventions for fetching tracker context. If requirements cannot be found, review the standards axis and state that spec conformance was not verified.

Evaluate two axes

• Standards: Does the change follow documented repository conventions and avoid material design regressions?
• Spec: Does it implement the requested behavior without omissions, incorrect behavior, or unrelated scope?

Use deterministic checks for properties tooling can decide. For qualitative review, load review heuristics only when the diff warrants deeper design analysis.

The axes are independent and may be evaluated concurrently when the diff is large enough to benefit. Keep a small review local, and avoid parallel work when coordination would cost more than it saves.

Report

Lead with actionable findings, citing the affected file and evidence. Separate documented violations from judgment calls and keep Standards and Spec findings distinct so one axis cannot mask the other. State unavailable evidence and report when no material findings remain.