unity-code-review

Two-axis review of the current Git index (staged changes):

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

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

Process

1. Establish the staged review set

Inspect git status --short and capture the review diff with git diff --cached, including staged additions, modifications, deletions, and renames. Record the staged file list with git diff --cached --name-status.

If there are no staged changes, report exactly No staged changes to review. and stop before spawning sub-agents.

The staged diff is the review boundary. Read staged file contents with git show :<path> so partially staged files are reviewed as they exist in the index, not the working tree. Read related files only as context; unstaged and untracked changes are outside the review scope.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

1. A path the user passed as an argument.
2. A spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
3. 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

• docs/coding-standards.md, .agents/skills/unity-tdd/tests.md, the task/spec's agreed test seam, and the relevant ADRs for acceptance ownership. Include these paths in the Standards sub-agent's sources.
• Judge assertions against their declared contract: intentional approved-content locks differ from generic behavior tests. Human-owned startup/visual acceptance is not a missing automated test. Mechanical rules belong to the repository checker; review test quality beyond its documented detection limits rather than duplicating those diagnostics.

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. 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 reviewer sub-agents in parallel

Issue both reviewer sub-agent calls together, in the foreground, and aggregate the reports they return.

Standards sub-agent prompt should include:

• The staged diff command and file list from step 1, plus its review-boundary and index-reading instructions.
• 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 should include:

• The staged diff command and file list from step 1, plus its review-boundary and index-reading instructions.
• 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, because 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 task asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.

Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.