Skill Staged Review
Review code in two passes: spec compliance then quality — use for thorough PR or feature reviews
MCP get_skill({ skillId: "two-stage-review-pipeline-92bd8886" })Use this skill with your agent
Create a free account and connect via MCP
> **Host: Codex CLI** — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex.
> Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than `/octo:*` slash commands.
> Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it.
> For host tool equivalents, see `skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md`.
## Execution Contract (MANDATORY - CANNOT SKIP)
This generated Codex skill preserves an enforced workflow contract from the source skill.
**PROHIBITED:**
- Do not summarize, simulate, or skip the referenced workflow command when this skill requires execution.
- Do not claim provider output or validation artifacts exist without checking the actual files or command output.
- Do not continue silently when a required provider, command, or host capability is unavailable; report the unavailable dependency and use a supported fallback.
# Two-Stage Review Pipeline
Separates **spec compliance** (did you build the right thing?) from **code quality**
(did you build it right?). Stage 1 must pass before Stage 2 runs.
## Stage 1: Spec Compliance
Validates the implementation against the intent contract.
### Step 1: Load Intent Contract
```bash
INTENT_FILE=".claude/session-intent.md"
if [[ -f "$INTENT_FILE" ]]; then
echo "Intent contract found: $INTENT_FILE"
cat "$INTENT_FILE"
else
echo "WARNING: No intent contract found at $INTENT_FILE"
echo "Skipping Stage 1 — proceeding to Stage 2 (code quality) only."
fi
```
**If no intent contract exists:** Warn the user and skip to Stage 2. Do NOT fabricate
success criteria — the contract must exist from a prior workflow.
### Step 2: Validate Success Criteria
For each success criterion in the intent contract:
1. **Read the criterion** from the `## Success Criteria` section
2. **Find evidence** in the codebase that the criterion is met
3. **Mark status:**
- `[PASS]` — Evidence confirms criterion is met
- `[FAIL]` — Evidence shows criterion is NOT met
- `[PARTIAL]` — Partially met, gaps identified
Present results:
```markdown
## Stage 1: Spec Compliance
### Success Criteria Check
#### Good Enough Criteria
- [PASS] Criterion 1: <how it was met>
- [FAIL] Criterion 2: <why not met, what's missing>
#### Exceptional Criteria
- [PARTIAL] Criterion 1: <what's done, what's remaining>
```
### Step 3: Validate Boundaries
For each boundary in the intent contract:
1. **Read the boundary** from the `## Boundaries` section
2. **Check for violations** in the implementation
3. **Mark status:**
- `[RESPECTED]` — No violations found
- `[VIOLATED]` — Implementation crosses the boundary
```markdown
### Boundary Check
- [RESPECTED] Boundary 1: <confirmation>
- [VIOLATED] Boundary 2: <what violated it>
```
### Step 4: Stage 1 Gate
| Result | Action |
|--------|--------|
| All criteria PASS + all boundaries RESPECTED | Proceed to Stage 2 |
| Any criterion FAIL | Report failures. Ask user: fix now or proceed anyway? |
| Any boundary VIOLATED | Report violations. Ask user: fix now or proceed anyway? |
**If user chooses to fix:** Stop review, list specific fixes needed.
**If user chooses to proceed:** Note the overrides and continue to Stage 2.
## Stage 2: Code Quality
Runs stub detection and full code quality review.
### Step 1: Stub Detection
Run 5 checks on all changed files:
```bash
# Get changed files
if git diff --cached --name-only 2>/dev/null | head -1 > /dev/null; then
changed_files=$(git diff --cached --name-only)
elif git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -1 > /dev/null; then
changed_files=$(git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD)
else
changed_files=$(git diff --name-only)
fi
# Filter source files
source_files=$(echo "$changed_files" | grep -E "\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|sh)$" || true)
STUB_ISSUES=0
for file in $source_files; do
[[ -f "$file" ]] || continue
# Check 1: TODO/FIXME/PLACEHOLDER markers
todo_count=$(grep -cE "(TODO|FIXME|PLACEHOLDER|XXX)" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
if [[ "$todo_count" -gt 0 ]]; then
echo "WARNING: $file has $todo_count TODO/FIXME markers"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi
# Check 2: Empty function bodies
empty_fn=$(grep -cE "function.*\{\s*\}|=>\s*\{\s*\}" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
if [[ "$empty_fn" -gt 0 ]]; then
echo "ERROR: $file has $empty_fn empty functions"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi
# Check 3: Suspicious null/undefined returns
null_ret=$(grep -cE "return (null|undefined);" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
if [[ "$null_ret" -gt 0 ]]; then
echo "WARNING: $file has $null_ret null/undefined returns — verify intentional"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi
# Check 4: Substantive line count
subst_lines=$(grep -cvE "^\s*(//|/\*|\*|#|import|export|$)" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
if [[ "$subst_lines" -lt 5 ]]; then
echo "WARNING: $file has only $subst_lines substantive lines"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi
# Check 5: Mock/test data in production code
mock_count=$(grep -cE "const.*(mock|test|dummy|fake).*=" "$file" 2>/dev/null || echo "0")
if [[ "$mock_count" -gt 0 ]]; then
echo "WARNING: $file has $mock_count mock/test data references"
STUB_ISSUES=$((STUB_ISSUES + 1))
fi
done
echo "Stub detection complete: $STUB_ISSUES issues found"
```
### Step 2: Multi-LLM Quality Review (RECOMMENDED)
**After stub detection, dispatch code to multiple providers for parallel quality review.** A Claude-only review pipeline misses what external models catch — Codex excels at logic errors and correctness, Gemini excels at security and edge case analysis. Using both produces higher-confidence findings.
**Check provider availability and dispatch in parallel:**
```bash
# Get the diff for review
DIFF_CONTENT=$(git diff --cached 2>/dev/null || git diff HEAD~1..HEAD 2>/dev/null || git diff)
```
**If external providers are available — dispatch focused reviews through Octopus routing:**
```bash
providers=()
command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(codex)
command -v agy >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(agy)
command -v gemini >/dev/null 2>&1 && providers+=(gemini)
for provider in "${providers[@]}"; do
safe_provider=$(printf '%s' "$provider" | tr -c '[:alnum:]_-' '_')
"${HOME}/.claude-octopus/plugin/scripts/orchestrate.sh" spawn "$provider" \
"Review this code diff for LOGIC, CORRECTNESS, and SECURITY issues. Focus on:
1. Logic bugs and off-by-one errors
2. Unhandled error paths
3. Race conditions or concurrency issues
4. Incorrect type handling or implicit coercions
5. Security issues at trust boundaries
Report ONLY high-confidence issues. Do NOT flag style preferences.
DIFF:
${DIFF_CONTENT}" > "/tmp/octopus-review-${safe_provider}.md" 2>/dev/null &
done
```
**Wait for external reviews to complete, then synthesize all findings from Claude plus available external providers into a unified quality assessment.** If external providers are unavailable, fall back to the Claude-only review below.
**Claude (you) performs the full quality review regardless:**
1. **Architecture alignment** — Does the code follow project patterns?
2. **Error handling** — Are errors caught and handled appropriately?
3. **Security** — Any OWASP Top 10 issues?
4. **Performance** — Any obvious bottlenecks or N+1 queries?
5. **Readability** — Clear naming, reasonable complexity?
6. **Test coverage** — Are new behaviors tested?
**Synthesize external findings:** If external providers returned results, merge their findings with yours. Where providers disagree on severity, note the divergence. Where multiple providers flag the same issue, mark it as high-confidence.
### Step 3: Present Stage 2 Results
```markdown
## Stage 2: Code Quality
### Stub Detection
- Files scanned: N
- Issues found: N
- [Details of each issue]
### Quality Review
- Architecture: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Error Handling: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Security: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Performance: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Readability: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Test Coverage: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
### Blocking Issues
[List any issues that must be fixed before merge]
### Recommendations
[Non-blocking suggestions for improvement]
```
## Combined Report
After both stages complete, present the unified report:
```markdown
## Staged Review — Complete
### Stage 1: Spec Compliance
- Success Criteria: N/N passed
- Boundaries: N/N respected
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
### Stage 2: Code Quality
- Stub Detection: N issues
- Quality Score: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
- Blocking Issues: N
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
### Overall Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
[If FAIL: list specific items that must be addressed]
[If PASS: ready for merge/ship]
```
## When to Use Each Review Type
| Review Type | When | What It Checks |
|-------------|------|----------------|
| **skill-code-review** | Quick PR review | Code quality only |
| **skill-staged-review** | Major feature completion | Spec compliance + code quality |
| **skill-verification-gate** | Before any completion claim | Evidence of passing |
## Error Handling
| Error | Resolution |
|-------|------------|
| No intent contract | Skip Stage 1, warn user, run Stage 2 only |
| No changed files | Report nothing to review |
| Git not available | Use file listing instead of git diff |
| Stage 1 failures | Ask user: fix or override |
| Stage 2 blocking issues | Must fix before merge |
## The Bottom Line
```
Staged Review = Spec Compliance (Stage 1) + Code Quality (Stage 2)
Stage 1 gates Stage 2. Both must pass for overall PASS.
```
**Build the right thing, then build it right.**
## Post Results to PR (v8.44.0)
After the combined report is generated, check for an open PR and post findings.
```bash
# Detect open PR on current branch
CURRENT_BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo "")
PR_NUM=""
if [[ -n "$CURRENT_BRANCH" && "$CURRENT_BRANCH" != "main" && "$CURRENT_BRANCH" != "master" ]]; then
if command -v gh &>/dev/null; then
PR_NUM=$(gh pr list --head "$CURRENT_BRANCH" --json number --jq '.[0].number' 2>/dev/null || echo "")
fi
fi
if [[ -n "$PR_NUM" ]]; then
# Post combined report as PR comment
gh pr comment "$PR_NUM" --body "## Staged Review — Claude Octopus
${COMBINED_REPORT}
*Staged review by Claude Octopus (/octo:staged-review)*"
echo "Staged review posted to PR #${PR_NUM}"
fi
```
**Behavior:**
- Auto-posts when running inside `/octo:deliver` or `/octo:embrace` workflows
- Asks user first when invoked standalone via `/octo:staged-review`Related Skills
More skills in Software Engineering
Accessibility Standards
Comprehensive web accessibility standards based on WCAG 2.2 AA, with 38+ anti-patterns, legal enforcement context (EAA, ADA Title II), WAI-ARIA patterns, and framework-specific fixes for modern web frameworks and libraries.
Accord
Authoring unified specification packages across Business/Development/Design teams via staged elaboration (L0 Vision → L1 Requirements → L2 Team Detail → L3 Acceptance Criteria). No code. Use when authoring cross-team specs, building L0-L3 packages, or aligning Biz/Dev/Design on a single source of truth.
Acquire Codebase Knowledge
Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.
Acreadiness Assess
Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.
Acreadiness Generate Instructions
Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.
Acreadiness Policy
Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.
Explore Other Categories
Skills from other categories with shared topics
Code Review Skill
Expert multi-AI code review with inline PR comments — use for thorough quality and security analysis
Github Agents Code Reviewer
Code review expert for quality analysis, security vulnerabilities, and production reliability
1. Product type search — what design patterns fit this product?
Design UI/UX systems with style guides, palettes, typography, and component specs for new interfaces