--- name: xp-quality-review description: >- Independent review of the diff. Spawns xp-code-reviewer for correctness, drift, debt, reuse/quality, prose hygiene. effort: high allowed-tools: - Read - Edit - Write - Grep - Glob - Agent - Skill - Bash - Bash(*/skills/*/scripts/*) - Bash(*/append.sh *) - Bash(*/init.sh) --- !`CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}" ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/preload.sh` # Quality Review > **Sequential discipline.** Run Step 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 one per turn: make the > call, observe, then decide the next. Never batch a step with one that depends > on it, and never spawn the reviewer subagent more than once; independent > read-only calls may batch. The preload's `MODE` line selects Step 1's correctness handling: **`MODE=self-find`** (per-increment, `/code-review` did NOT run) — the xp-code-reviewer **self-finds correctness** itself; **`MODE=consume-findings`** (close path, `/code-review` ran first) — Step 1 reads its JSON findings array and the reviewer validates & fixes them. Both modes also cover quality/drift/debt. ## Step 1: Gather Reviewer Inputs ### Open concerns and debts the reviewer should see Pass the relevant existing concerns and debts in the prompt — the reviewer cannot infer which ones the diff might close, and it must judge whether the changes address them and whether a `Resolves-Event:` trailer is warranted on the next commit. Pull candidates from the preload's `## Debt for Changed Files` section (open, unresolved debts/concerns whose files overlap the diff) and from any plan-review concerns the preload lists. If the preload surfaced no overlapping events, state that explicitly — empty context reads as missing analysis, not absence. ### Gather Code-Review Findings (consume-findings mode only) When `MODE=consume-findings`: `/code-review` runs via the Workflow tool, so its verified findings arrive in the **task-notification result** (a `findings` array; each entry: `file`, `line`, `summary`, `failure_scenario`) — read them from there, not from a Skill result. All are unaddressed; pass them to the subagent to validate and fix. If the array is empty, say so in the prompt. Format as a numbered list for the prompt: ``` 1. file.py:123 — "summary of the bug" (failure: ) 2. other.py:45 — "summary of the bug" (failure: ) ``` ## Step 2: Build Reviewer Prompt and Spawn (single unconditional spawn) Build the `xp-code-reviewer` prompt now and spawn the reviewer **unconditionally**. In `self-find` mode pass `## Code-Review Findings\nNone — self-find correctness` so the reviewer takes its self-find branch — it self-triages the diff's risk from the change itself and its injected Constraints pillar (Section 1c) and elevates the risky angles on its own. In `consume-findings` mode pass the numbered findings list from Step 1. When a close cycle id is in scope for this invocation (a close skill supplied one), add a `## Close Cycle ID\n` section to the prompt; absent a close cycle id (per-commit review), omit the section entirely. **Single-spawn invariant.** Exactly ONE `xp-code-reviewer` spawn per cycle. Do NOT fan-out into multiple parallel spawns — sprint-103's 3-spawn fan-out had irreducible coordination races (filesystem writes, SMM appends, dedupe-key fragility). ``` Agent( subagent_type: "xp-agents:xp-code-reviewer", prompt: "## Diff\n\n\n## Code-Review Findings\n\n\n## Existing Debt\n\n\n## SMM Directory\nSMM_DIR=\n\nReview all five areas: correctness, drift, debt, reuse/quality/efficiency + XP values, prose hygiene." ) ``` Wait for the subagent to complete; its findings and recorded events return as a tool result. ## Step 3: Resolve Plan Review Concerns The preload lists open concerns from the plan reviewer. For each concern: - **If code changes address it** — resolve it: ```bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/smm/append.sh --smm-dir \ --type "status" --agent "xp-quality-review" \ --content "Resolved: [what was addressed]" \ --working-on '[]' --metadata '{"resolves": [""]}' ``` - **If the concern is still open** — leave it. No open plan concerns in the preload → skip this step. ## Step 4: Act on Subagent Findings Review the xp-code-reviewer's summary. For each finding: - **Fix directly** (preferred — courage). Edit files to address the issue, then re-run the preload's `TEST_COMMAND`. - **Fix overlapping open concerns now (COURAGE-FIX).** If an open plan-review or close-reviewer concern's `files` overlap the diff you're already touching, fix it now while the file is open — file overlap is in scope, no re-litigation. Don't defer to "MAYBE ADDRESSED" triage at close time. Resolve via the `Resolves-Event:` trailer in the same commit. - **Already recorded** by subagent via append.sh — no further action needed. - **Record as debt** if fix is too large for this review: ```bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/smm/append.sh --smm-dir \ --type "debt" --agent "xp-quality-review" \ --content "What needs fixing and why" --files '["path/to/file.py"]' ``` ## Step 5: Report Back Briefly summarize what was fixed, what was deferred as debt, and what was already clean. Do NOT append a status event — the PostToolUse hook records the lifecycle event. ## Guidelines - **Independence is the point.** The xp-code-reviewer subagent has fresh context — it didn't write the code. Trust its judgment: if it flags a finding as valid, default to applying the fix. - **Run the preload's `TEST_COMMAND`** after any changes to verify nothing breaks. If it is empty this project declared none — say so rather than guessing a runner, and give the customer the setter verbatim: `printf %s '""' | python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/smm/system_context_cli.py --smm-dir edit-stack-field test_command`. - If the subagent reports all code is clean, record the summary and move on.