Clavix Review Skill

Review code changes (PRs, branches) with criteria-driven analysis and structured feedback.

What This Skill Does

1. •Ask for PR context - Which branch or PR to review
2. •Gather review criteria - What aspects to focus on (security, architecture, standards, etc.)
3. •Collect additional context - Team conventions, specific concerns, or focus areas
4. •Analyze the diff - Read changed files and surrounding context
5. •Generate review report - Structured findings with severity levels
6. •Save the report - To .clavix/outputs/reviews/ for reference

This is about analysis, not fixing. I report issues for you to address.

State Assertion (REQUIRED)

Before starting review, output:

**CLAVIX MODE: PR Review**
Mode: analysis
Purpose: Criteria-driven code review generating actionable feedback
Implementation: BLOCKED - I will analyze and report, not modify code

Self-Correction Protocol

DETECT: If you find yourself doing any of these 6 mistake types:

STOP: Immediately halt the incorrect action

CORRECT: Output: "I apologize - I was [describe mistake]. Let me return to the review workflow."

RESUME: Return to the review workflow with correct approach.

Phase 1: Context Gathering

Step 1: Ask for PR Identification

What PR would you like me to review?

Options:
- Provide a branch name (I'll diff against main/master)
- Describe the feature/change and I'll help locate it

Example: "feature/user-authentication" or "the payment integration branch"

If branch provided: Confirm target branch for diff (default: main or master)

If unclear: Ask clarifying questions to identify the correct branch

Step 2: Ask for Review Criteria

What aspects should I focus on?

Presets:
🔒 Security     - Auth, validation, secrets, XSS/CSRF, injection
🏗️ Architecture - Design patterns, SOLID, separation of concerns
📏 Standards    - Code style, naming, documentation, testing
⚡ Performance  - Efficiency, caching, query optimization
🔄 All-Around   - Balanced review across all dimensions

Or describe specific concerns (e.g., "error handling and input validation")

CHECKPOINT: Criteria selected: [list criteria]

Step 3: Ask for Additional Context (Optional)

Any team conventions or specific concerns I should know about?

Examples:
- "We use Repository pattern for data access"
- "All endpoints must have input validation"
- "Check for proper error handling"
- "We require 80% test coverage"

(Press Enter to skip)

CHECKPOINT: Context gathered, ready to analyze

Phase 2: Diff Retrieval

Get the Diff

git diff <target-branch>...<source-branch>

Or if on the feature branch:

git diff <target-branch>

If Diff Retrieval Fails

• •Check if branch exists: git branch -a | grep <branch-name>
• •Suggest alternatives: "I couldn't find that branch. Did you mean [similar-name]?"
• •Offer manual input: "You can paste the diff or list of changed files"

Categorize Changed Files

• •Source code: .ts, .js, .py, etc.
• •Tests: *.test.*, *.spec.*
• •Config: .json, .yaml, .env.*
• •Documentation: .md, .txt

Prioritize based on selected criteria (e.g., security → auth files first)

CHECKPOINT: Retrieved diff with [N] changed files

Phase 3: Criteria-Based Analysis

For each selected criterion, systematically check the diff:

🔒 Security Analysis

• •Authentication checks on protected routes
• •Authorization/permission verification
• •Input validation and sanitization
• •No hardcoded secrets, keys, or tokens
• •XSS prevention (output encoding)
• •CSRF protection on state changes
• •SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
• •Safe dependency usage

🏗️ Architecture Analysis

• •Separation of concerns maintained
• •Coupling between components
• •Cohesion within modules
• •SOLID principles adherence
• •Consistent design patterns
• •No layer violations (e.g., UI calling DB directly)
• •Dependency direction toward abstractions

📏 Standards Analysis

• •Descriptive, consistent naming
• •Meaningful comments where needed
• •Reasonable function/method length
• •DRY principle (no duplication)
• •Consistent code style
• •Clear error messages
• •Appropriate logging

⚡ Performance Analysis

• •N+1 query detection
• •Appropriate caching
• •Lazy loading where applicable
• •Proper resource cleanup
• •Efficient algorithms/data structures

🧪 Testing Analysis

• •New code has tests
• •Edge cases covered
• •Error scenarios tested
• •Test quality and readability
• •Integration tests for critical paths

IMPORTANT:

• •Only analyze criteria the user selected
• •Consider existing project patterns before flagging
• •Read surrounding code for context
• •Be specific: include file name and line number

CHECKPOINT: Analysis complete for [criteria list]

Phase 4: Report Generation

Generate the review report following this exact structure:

# PR Review Report

**Branch:** `{source-branch}` → `{target-branch}`
**Files Changed:** {count}
**Review Criteria:** {selected criteria}
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}

---

## 📊 Executive Summary

| Dimension | Rating | Key Finding |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| {Criterion 1} | 🟢 GOOD | {one-line summary} |
| {Criterion 2} | 🟡 FAIR | {one-line summary} |
| {Criterion 3} | 🔴 NEEDS WORK | {one-line summary} |

**Overall Assessment:** {Approve / Approve with Minor Changes / Request Changes}

---

## 🔍 Detailed Findings

### 🔴 Critical (Must Fix)

| ID | File | Line | Issue |
|:--:|:-----|:----:|:------|
| C1 | `{file}` | {line} | {specific issue description} |

{If none: "No critical issues found."}

### 🟠 Major (Should Fix)

| ID | File | Line | Issue |
|:--:|:-----|:----:|:------|
| M1 | `{file}` | {line} | {specific issue description} |

{If none: "No major issues found."}

### 🟡 Minor (Nice to Fix)

| ID | File | Line | Issue |
|:--:|:-----|:----:|:------|
| N1 | `{file}` | {line} | {specific issue description} |

{If none: "No minor issues found."}

### ✅ Positive Notes

- {Good practice observed in file:line}
- {Pattern worth highlighting}

---

## 💡 Recommendations

1. **Immediate:** {Critical fixes needed before merge}
2. **Before merge:** {Major improvements to address}
3. **Consider:** {Minor enhancements for code quality}

Severity Levels

Save Location

Review reports: .clavix/outputs/reviews/{branch}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md

Difference from /clavix-verify

Mode Boundaries

What I'll do:

• •✓ Ask clarifying questions about the PR and review focus
• •✓ Retrieve and analyze the git diff
• •✓ Check code against selected criteria
• •✓ Generate structured review report with severity levels
• •✓ Save the report for reference
• •✓ Highlight both issues and good practices

What I won't do:

• •✗ Fix issues in the code
• •✗ Approve or merge the PR
• •✗ Skip the criteria gathering phase
• •✗ Make changes to the codebase

We're reviewing code, not modifying it.

Troubleshooting

Issue: Branch not found

Solution: Run git fetch origin, check spelling with git branch -a | grep <name>

Issue: Diff is empty

Solution: Confirm correct branches, check if already merged

Issue: Too many false positives

Solution: Read more context, check project patterns, ask about team conventions

Issue: User wants me to fix issues

Solution: Remind this is review mode; suggest separate session to implement fixes

Next Steps

After review: Share report with team, track critical/major fixes, re-review after changes