nomadcode/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md

---
name: code-review
description: Review completed implementation work in the current repository. Reads PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md and CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md from the active task, reviews the actual changed source files, appends a verdict to the review file, then archives both files as .log. On PASS, writes complete.log summarising the full loop history and moves the completed task under agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/. If Required or Suggested issues are found (FAIL or WARN), writes new routed plan/review files so the loop continues immediately. Nit-only findings may still PASS.
---

# Code Review

## Purpose

Review the implementation phase of the plan-code-review loop:

```text
plan skill -> implementation -> code-review skill
     ^                              |
     +----- issues found: new routed plan/review files
```

## Workflow Contract

Active work must live under `agent-task/{task_name}/` using routed filenames. This is the state protocol shared with the plan skill.

Filename rules:

- Plan file: `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md`
- Review file: `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md`
- `{lane}` is only `local` or `cloud`; never put model names in filenames.
- `GNN` is a two-digit capability grade from `G01` to `G10`; runtime maps lane+grade to current models externally.

Multi-plan runtime contract:

- Multi-plan work is represented as multiple task directories. Each directory owns exactly one normal active plan file and one normal active review file.
- Directory names may encode runtime scheduling metadata. Preserve them verbatim; do not normalize, reinterpret, or choose execution order by agent judgment.
- If the user/runtime names a task directory, review that directory even when other active review files exist.

Review routing rules:

- `local`: narrow, low-risk, or first-pass review where tests and scope are clear.
- `cloud`: multi-file, API/call-site impact, meaningful test judgment, plan deviation, weak verification, security/auth, storage/migration, concurrency, protocol/schema, cross-domain, or repeated Required issues.
- `cloud-G07` or higher is mandatory for terminal-agent follow-up work: shell/CLI workflow implementation, bin script orchestration, process control, stdout/stderr parsing, exit-status contracts, long-running command diagnosis, or terminal benchmark-style tasks. Merely running deterministic tests such as `go test` does not make a task terminal-agent work.
- `cloud-G07` or higher is mandatory for follow-up plans when a local implementation failed a real bin/smoke/integration command after unit tests passed, when the success condition depends on an interactive TUI/PTY/browser/external CLI or screen repaint/cursor stream, or when verification trust is Fail because recorded stdout/stderr does not match a rerun.

Directory states:

| State | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` stub or placeholders | Implementation is pending/incomplete; review should fail completeness if invoked |
| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + filled `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` | Ready for code-review skill |
| `complete.log` + `*.log` files | Task complete (PASS), before final task-directory archive move |
| `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/complete.log` + `*.log` files | Archived completed task (PASS); not active |
| Only `*.log` files (no `complete.log`) | Task terminated mid-loop or abandoned |

The implementing agent never archives or deletes active files; archiving is this skill's responsibility.

Finalization invariant:

- Every review attempt that selects an active review file must end by archiving the active `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` and `PLAN-*-G??.md` files.
- After archiving, exactly one next state is allowed:
  - `PASS`: write `complete.log`, move `agent-task/{task_name}/` to `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/`, then complete the review-only checklist in the final archive path.
  - `WARN` or `FAIL`: write the next active `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` and `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md`; do not write `complete.log`.
- Never stop after appending a verdict. Do not report to the user until archive, required next-state file writes, review-only checklist updates, and PASS task-directory archive moves are complete.
- If the review result feels ambiguous, choose `WARN` or `FAIL` according to the severity rules, archive the current files, and write the next plan/review pair. Ambiguity is not a reason to leave active files unarchived.

## Step 1 - Find Active Task

Glob `agent-task/*/CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md`:

| Result | Action |
|--------|--------|
| Exactly one | Review that task; exactly one `PLAN-*-G??.md` is expected beside it |
| None | Nothing to review; stop and report |
| Multiple | If the user/runtime named a task directory, review that directory. Otherwise list paths and ask which task to review; do not choose by agent judgment. |

## Step 2 - Load Context

Count `agent-task/{task_name}/code_review_*.log`:

- `0`: first review. Read the active review file, active plan file, every planned source file, related tests, and files importing/imported by changed files up to 2 levels deep.
- `>=1`: follow-up review. Start with `git diff`, `git diff --cached`, and `git log --oneline -5`, then expand to related callers, implementers, tests, and any planned files missing from the diff.

The diff is the starting point, not the boundary. Follow behavior and API connections far enough to judge correctness.

## Step 3 - Pre-Review Checklist

Before writing the verdict:

- Compare actual source files against every planned checklist item.
- Compare the plan `구현 체크리스트` and review stub `구현 체크리스트`; item text/order must match.
- Confirm the implementation marked the matching checklist items in the active review file, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item.
- Treat blank placeholder sections, missing actual implementation notes, missing checklist completion, or missing actual stdout/stderr in the active review file as a completeness or verification-trust failure.
- Grep renamed/removed symbols for stale references.
- Confirm every required test exists, name matches, and assertions are meaningful.
- Cross-check claimed verification output in the active review file against actual code and project commands.
- For follow-up reviews, compare diff against the plan and scan for unplanned changes, debug prints, dead code, TODOs, formatting-only noise, and unrelated edits.

## Step 4 - Append Verdict

Append `코드리뷰 결과` to the active `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md`.

Required fields:

- `종합 판정`: exactly `PASS`, `WARN`, or `FAIL`.
- `차원별 평가`: Pass/Warn/Fail for correctness, completeness, test coverage, API contract, code quality, plan deviation, verification trust.
- `발견된 문제`: `없음`, or bullets using `Required`, `Suggested`, or `Nit` with `file:line` and a concrete fix.
- `다음 단계`: keep only the matching PASS/WARN/FAIL line.

Do not check archive/next-state items in `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트` during Step 4. Complete the applicable dedicated checklist items in the archived `code_review_*.log` during Step 7, after archive, next-state writes, and PASS task-directory moves are done.

Severity semantics:

| Verdict | Meaning | Follow-up plan |
|---------|---------|----------------|
| `PASS` | No Required/Suggested issues. Nit-only findings may still PASS. | No |
| `WARN` | One or more Suggested issues, zero Required. | Yes |
| `FAIL` | One or more Required issues. | Yes |

Issue severity:

- `Required`: correctness, API contract, missing required test, plan-completeness issue, or incomplete/placeholder `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` content required from the implementing agent.
- `Suggested`: useful improvement that should enter the loop but does not block correctness.
- `Nit`: tiny cleanup; may be recorded without forcing WARN.

Verdict consistency:

- `PASS` requires all dimensions to be Pass and no Required/Suggested issues. Nit-only findings may still PASS only when every dimension remains Pass.
- Any Fail dimension or any Required issue forces `FAIL`.
- Any Warn dimension or any Suggested issue forces `WARN`, unless the only findings are explicitly Nit and every dimension remains Pass.

## Step 5 - Archive Active Files

Archive is mandatory for `PASS`, `WARN`, and `FAIL`. Archive order is fixed:

1. Count existing `code_review_*.log` as `N`; rename `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md` to `code_review_{review_lane}_GNN_N.log`.
2. Count existing `plan_*.log` as `M`; rename `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` to `plan_{build_lane}_GNN_M.log`.

After archiving, neither active `.md` file remains unless Step 6 writes a follow-up.

## Step 6 - Post-Review Actions

For `PASS`, write `agent-task/{task_name}/complete.log` before reporting.

Complete log template:

- Template path: `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/complete-log-template.md`
- Copy the template's section order and fill every placeholder from the archived plan/review logs and final verdict.
- Do not leave placeholders in `complete.log`.
- Use `없음` for empty `잔여 Nit` or `후속 작업`.
- A PASS `complete.log` must not contain unresolved Required or Suggested issues. Nit-only leftovers may be recorded under `잔여 Nit`.

After Step 7, report:

- Verdict.
- Archive filenames.
- Final task archive path under `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/`.

For `WARN` or `FAIL`, write new routed plan/review files using the plan skill format:

- New plan number is the count of `plan_*.log` after archive.
- Header tag is `REVIEW_<PARENT_TAG>`.
- Choose lane/grade again; preserve the prior route only when it was adequate, otherwise raise `GNN` and/or move `local -> cloud`.
- Before choosing the follow-up route, apply this escalation gate:
  - If the archived plan was `local-*` and the verdict is `FAIL` for correctness, completeness, test coverage, or verification trust, move the follow-up build lane to `cloud` unless the issue is trivially deterministic and review-detectable without live environment behavior.
  - If the follow-up work is terminal-agent work (shell/CLI workflow implementation, bin script orchestration, process control, stdout/stderr parsing, exit-status contracts, long-running command diagnosis, or terminal benchmark-style tasks), use `cloud-G07` or higher.
  - If unit tests passed but a real bin/smoke/integration command failed, use `cloud-G07` or higher.
  - If the task depends on interactive TUI/PTY/browser/external CLI behavior, screen repaint/cursor stream parsing, or live command-palette state, use `cloud-G07` or higher.
  - If recorded verification output was reconstructed, stale, or mismatched on rerun, use `cloud-G07` or higher and make verification trust recovery a plan item.
- `FAIL`: one plan item per Required issue.
- `WARN`: one grouped plan item for Suggested issues, plus related Nit issues if useful.
- Each plan item needs problem, solution with before/after when non-trivial, checklist, test decision, intermediate verification.
- The follow-up plan and review stub must contain matching `구현 체크리스트` item text/order, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item.

Routed review stub template (fill `{…}` placeholders; everything else is fixed and must not be changed by the implementing agent):

```markdown
<!-- task={task_name} plan={N} tag={TAG} -->

# Code Review Reference - {TAG}

> **[IMPLEMENTING AGENT — READ FIRST] Filling in this file is the mandatory final step of implementation.**
> The task is NOT complete until every implementation-owned section below is filled in.
> Complete the `구현 체크리스트`; the final checklist item is mandatory before saving.
> Do not modify or check the `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`; it is owned by the review agent only.
> Follow the ownership table at the bottom of this file for which sections you own.

## 개요

date={YYYY-MM-DD}
task={task_name}, plan={N}, tag={TAG}

## 이 파일을 읽는 리뷰 에이전트에게

각 항목의 구현을 실제 소스 파일과 대조하고, `검증 결과` 섹션의 출력이 코드와 일치하는지 확인하세요.
Review 완료 후 반드시 아래 순서로 아카이브하세요.

1. `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md` → `code_review_{review_lane}_GNN_N.log` (N = 기존 code_review_*.log 수)
2. `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` → `plan_{build_lane}_GNN_M.log` (M = 기존 plan_*.log 수)
3. PASS인 경우 `complete.log` 작성 후 `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/`로 task 디렉터리 이동. WARN/FAIL인 경우 새 routed plan + review 스텁 작성.

어떤 판정에서도 아카이브를 건너뛰지 마세요. PASS/WARN/FAIL 모두 `코드리뷰 결과` append 후 active plan/review 파일을 먼저 아카이브하고, 그 다음 `complete.log` 또는 다음 plan/review 파일을 작성해야 합니다.
PASS에서는 `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/complete-log-template.md`의 섹션 순서와 필수 항목을 기준으로 `complete.log`를 작성하세요. 작성 후 현재 날짜의 `YYYY/MM` 기준으로 task 디렉터리를 `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/`로 이동하고, 최종 archive 경로의 `code_review_*.log`에서 `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`를 갱신한 다음 보고하세요.
WARN/FAIL에서는 다음 상태 파일 작성 후 현재 task 경로의 archived `code_review_*.log`에서 적용 가능한 `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트` 항목을 체크한 다음 보고하세요.

---

## 구현 항목별 완료 여부

| 항목 | 완료 여부 |
|------|---------|
| [{TAG}-1] {item description} | [ ] |
| [{TAG}-2] {item description} | [ ] |

## 구현 체크리스트

{copy the follow-up plan's 구현 체크리스트 items exactly, preserving order and checkbox text}

## 코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트

> **[REVIEW AGENT ONLY]** 이 체크리스트는 코드리뷰 에이전트만 사용한다.
> 구현 에이전트는 이 섹션을 수정하거나 체크하지 않는다.

- [ ] `코드리뷰 결과`에 `PASS`, `WARN`, `FAIL` 중 하나의 판정을 append한다.
- [ ] 판정과 `차원별 평가`, Required/Suggested/Nit 분류가 서로 일치한다.
- [ ] active `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md`를 `code_review_{review_lane}_GNN_N.log`로 아카이브한다.
- [ ] active `PLAN-*-G??.md`를 `plan_{build_lane}_GNN_M.log`로 아카이브한다.
- [ ] PASS이면 `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/complete-log-template.md` 기준으로 `complete.log`를 작성하고 active `.md` 파일을 남기지 않는다.
- [ ] PASS이면 `agent-task/{task_name}/`를 `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/`로 이동하고 최종 archive 경로에서 이 체크리스트를 갱신한다.
- [ ] WARN/FAIL이면 다음 active `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md`와 `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md`를 작성하고 `complete.log`를 작성하지 않는다.

## 계획 대비 변경 사항

_구현 에이전트가 계획과 다르게 구현한 부분을 이유와 함께 기록한다._

## 주요 설계 결정

_구현 에이전트가 주요 설계 결정 사항을 기록한다._

## 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트

{pre-filled from plan — one bullet per review focus area}

## 검증 결과

_구현 에이전트가 각 중간 검증 및 최종 검증 명령 실행 후 출력을 여기에 붙여 넣는다._

필수 규칙:
- 검증 명령은 고정된 계약이다. 임의로 대체하지 않는다.
- 대체가 필요하면 `계획 대비 변경 사항`에 이유와 대체 명령을 기록한다.
- `검증 결과`에는 실제 stdout/stderr를 붙여 넣는다.

### {TAG}-1 중간 검증
```
$ {verification command from plan}
(output)
```

### 최종 검증
```
$ {final verification command from plan}
(output)
```

---

> **[IMPLEMENTING AGENT — BEFORE SAVING] Have you filled in every implementation-owned section: completion table, implementation checklist, changes from plan, design decisions, and verification output?**
> If anything is blank, go back and fill it in before saving this file.
> Leave the review-agent-only checklist unchanged.
```

Sections and their ownership:

| 섹션 | 소유자 | 설명 |
|------|--------|------|
| 헤더 주석, 개요(date/task/plan/tag), 리뷰 에이전트 지시 | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 구현 에이전트가 수정하지 않음 |
| 구현 항목별 완료 여부 (항목명) | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | `[ ]` → `[x]` 체크만 구현 에이전트가 수행 |
| 구현 체크리스트 (항목 텍스트/순서) | follow-up plan에서 복사해 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 구현 에이전트가 `[ ]` → `[x]` 체크만 수행; 마지막 체크박스는 저장 전 필수 |
| 코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트 | Review agent only | Implementing agent must not modify or check this section |
| 계획 대비 변경 사항, 주요 설계 결정 | 구현 에이전트가 채움 | placeholder 텍스트를 실제 내용으로 교체 |
| 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트 | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 계획에서 추출한 리뷰 포인트 |
| 검증 결과 (섹션 제목 + 명령) | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 실행 출력만 구현 에이전트가 채움; 명령 변경은 `계획 대비 변경 사항`에 기록 |
| 코드리뷰 결과 | 리뷰 에이전트가 append | 스텁에 포함하지 않음 |

## Step 7 - Complete Review-Only Checklist, Move PASS Task, And Report

After Step 6:

- If verdict is `PASS`, determine archive month from the current completion date as `YYYY/MM`, create `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/` if missing, then move `agent-task/{task_name}/` to `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/`.
- Do not overwrite an existing archive directory. If `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}/` already exists, append the next numeric suffix: `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}_1/`, `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{task_name}_2/`, and so on.
- For `PASS`, open the moved `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/{final_task_dir}/code_review_{review_lane}_GNN_N.log`.
- For `WARN` or `FAIL`, open `agent-task/{task_name}/code_review_{review_lane}_GNN_N.log`.
- Check every applicable item in `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`; leave mutually exclusive verdict items unchecked.
- If any applicable item cannot be checked, finish the missing archive, `complete.log`, task-directory move, or follow-up plan/review write first.
- Do not recreate an active review file just to update this checklist; update the archived `code_review_*.log`.
- Only report after the archived review log has the verdict, applicable checked review-only checklist, required next-state files, and for `PASS` the final task archive move.

Report Required/Suggested counts, archive names, and the final task archive path for `PASS` or new plan path for `WARN`/`FAIL`.

## Review Dimensions

| Dimension | Check |
|-----------|-------|
| Correctness | Logic, edge cases, concurrency, errors |
| Completeness | All planned checklist items done, including matching plan/review `구현 체크리스트` completion |
| Test coverage | Required tests present and meaningful |
| API contract | Call sites, compatibility, docs |
| Code quality | No debug prints, dead code, leftover TODOs |
| Plan deviation | Deviations justified, no unrelated risk |
| Verification trust | Reported output matches actual code |

## Quality Rules

- Lead with findings; use specific `file:line`.
- Provide a concrete fix for every Required issue.
- Name exact stale symbols or missing tests.
- Do not write vague praise or style opinions without a rule.
- Every dimension gets Pass/Warn/Fail.
- For follow-up plans about verification trust, specify deterministic commands, for example `rg --sort path`, and forbid repo-local tool artifacts.

## Final Checklist

- `code_review_{review_lane}_GNN_N.log` exists with verdict appended.
- `plan_{build_lane}_GNN_M.log` exists.
- No active `.md` files remain after PASS.
- PASS: `complete.log` written from `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/complete-log-template.md`, then task directory moved under `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/`.
- WARN/FAIL: new active `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` and `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md` created with matching headers and matching `구현 체크리스트`; no `complete.log`.
- The applicable review-agent-only finalization checklist was completed before reporting.