Matt Pocock 工程方法论 - code-review

code-review：mattpocock/skills 方法论: engineering/code-review，适用于工程实践、代码质量与开发流程优化。

Skill Documentation

Matt Pocock 工程方法论 - code-review

摘要

code-review：mattpocock/skills 方法论: engineering/code-review，适用于工程实践、代码质量与开发流程优化。

> 来源: mattpocock/skills (141k stars) — Total TypeScript 创始人 Matt Pocock

> 类目: 工程方法论

> 原文件: skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md

> 模型推荐: gpt-4.1 (代码工程)

这个 skill 是干嘛的

Matt Pocock (Total TypeScript, 141k stars) 沉淀下来的"日常代码工程动作"skill 模板。

每一个对应一个具体动作(代码评审 / TDD / 重构 / 文档对齐 / 任务交接),不是工具,是"该怎么干这件事"的工作流模板。

michael 强调"skill 要有相应的指导功能,指导用户使用",所以这里加了下面两节让 Agent 和用户对接。

---

🤖 Agent 使用说明

1. 接到任务后先按这个 skill 的检查清单走一遍

2. 清单里如果出现"先做 X 才能做 Y"的红线 → 必须先完成 X

3. 跑完清单后开始动手(改代码 / 写文档 / 评审)

4. 完工前用 `verification-before-completion`(superpowers) 或 `verification` 类 step 自检

5. 任务量大时考虑用 `dispatching-parallel-agents`(superpowers) 或 `wayfinder`(mattpocock) 拆解

👤 用户需要做什么?

1. 告诉 Agent 你要做什么(一句话即可)

2. Agent 跑 skill 清单时不要打断 — 它可能在收集上下文

3. 如果 Agent 主动问你"代码评审要不要安排一个 reviewer"等决策点 → 直接回答

4. 完工后让 Agent 跑一遍自检再交回

5. 整个过程 Agent 自动化,不需要手工介入

---

原 skill 内容(mattpocock/skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md)

---

name: code-review

description: Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

---

Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and a fixed point the user supplies:

• **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
• **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?

Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` is missing, tell the user to run `/setup-matt-pocock-skills`.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, `main`, `HEAD~5`, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.

Capture the diff command once: `git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD` (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via `git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline`.

Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (`git rev-parse <fixed-point>`) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. Issue references in the commit messages (`#123`, `Closes #45`, GitLab `!67`, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`.

2. A path the user passed as an argument.

3. A spec file under `docs/`, `specs/`, or `.scratch/` matching the branch name or feature.

4. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".

3. Identify the standards sources

Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:

• **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
• **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.

Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:

• **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
• **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
• **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own. → move the method onto the data it envies.
• **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
• **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
• **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
• **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
• **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons. → split so each module changes for one reason.
• **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
• **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on. → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
• **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call the real target direct.
• **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

**Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:

• The full diff command and commit list.
• The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
• The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."

**Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:

• The diff command and commit list.
• The path or fetched contents of the spec.
• The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each finding. Under 400 words."

If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.

5. Aggregate

Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate (see _Why two axes_).

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.

Why two axes

A change can pass one axis and fail the other:

• Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**
• Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.

常见问题（FAQ）

使用「code-review」这个 skill 能解决什么问题?

本 skill 专注于code-review，mattpocock/skills 方法论: engineering/code-review。它将相关流程标准化，帮助用户更快拿到可靠结果，减少重复手工操作。

什么情况下适合使用「code-review」?

当你需要在code-review相关工作中获得稳定、可复用的产出时最适合——无论是单次任务还是纳入日常工作流，都能直接调用。

使用「code-review」前需要准备什么?

需要一个具体的项目或任务上下文，最好带有代码仓库或需求文档。