Initial commit: antigravity-claudekit

skills/ck-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+name: ck-code-review
+description: Review code quality with technical rigor, scout edge cases, verify completion claims. Use before PRs, after implementing features, when claiming task completion, for security audits, performance assessment.
+---
+
+# ck-code-review
+
+Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses. Embeds the `code-reviewer` agent role.
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**YAGNI**, **KISS**, **DRY** always. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+**Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.**
+
+Verify before claiming. Evidence before completion. Scout before reviewing.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Before merging pull requests
+- After implementing features
+- When claiming task completion
+- Security audits and performance assessments
+- Stuck on a problem, need an outside perspective
+
+## Don't Use When
+
+- Still mid-implementation — finish the work first
+- Doing exploratory spikes that won't be merged
+- Simple typo or comment changes with no logic impact
+
+## Three Practices
+
+| Practice | When |
+|----------|------|
+| Receiving feedback | Unclear feedback, external reviewers, needs prioritization |
+| Requesting review | After tasks, before merge, stuck on problem |
+| Verification gates | Before any completion claim, commit, PR |
+| Edge case scouting | After implementation, before review |
+
+## Receiving Feedback
+
+**Pattern:** READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT
+
+**Rules:**
+- No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!"
+- No implementation before verification
+- Restate, ask questions, push back with reasoning, or just work
+- YAGNI check: search for usage before implementing "proper" features
+
+**Source handling:**
+- Human partner: Trusted — implement after understanding
+- External reviewers: Verify technically, check for breakage, push back if wrong
+
+## Requesting Review
+
+**Process:**
+1. **Scout edge cases first** (see below)
+2. Get commit SHAs: base and head
+3. Dispatch `ck-code-review` with: WHAT, PLAN, BASE_SHA, HEAD_SHA, DESCRIPTION
+4. Fix Critical immediately; fix Important before proceeding
+
+## Edge Case Scouting
+
+**When:** After implementation, before requesting review
+
+**Purpose:** Proactively find edge cases, side effects, and potential issues.
+
+**Process:**
+1. Invoke `ck-scout` with edge-case-focused prompt
+2. Scout analyzes: affected files, data flows, error paths, boundary conditions
+3. Review scout findings for potential issues
+4. Address critical gaps before code review
+
+## Systematic Review Areas
+
+| Area | Focus |
+|------|-------|
+| Structure | Organization, modularity |
+| Logic | Correctness, edge cases from scout |
+| Types | Safety, error handling |
+| Performance | Bottlenecks, inefficiencies |
+| Security | Vulnerabilities, data exposure |
+
+## Prioritization
+
+- **Critical**: Security vulnerabilities, data loss, breaking changes
+- **High**: Performance issues, type safety, missing error handling
+- **Medium**: Code smells, maintainability, docs gaps
+- **Low**: Style, minor optimizations
+
+## Verification Gates
+
+**Iron Law:** NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
+
+**Gate:** IDENTIFY command → RUN full → READ output → VERIFY confirms → THEN claim
+
+**Requirements:**
+- Tests pass: output shows 0 failures
+- Build succeeds: exit 0
+- Bug fixed: original symptom passes
+- Requirements met: checklist verified
+
+**Red Flags:** "should"/"probably"/"seems to", satisfaction before verification, trusting agent reports
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Code Review Summary
+
+### Scope
+- Files: [list]
+- LOC: [count]
+- Scout findings: [edge cases discovered]
+
+### Overall Assessment
+[Brief quality overview]
+
+### Critical Issues
+[Security, breaking changes]
+
+### High Priority
+[Performance, type safety]
+
+### Medium Priority
+[Code quality, maintainability]
+
+### Low Priority
+[Style, minor opts]
+
+### Edge Cases Found by Scout
+[Issues from scouting phase]
+
+### Positive Observations
+[Good practices noted]
+
+### Recommended Actions
+1. [Prioritized fixes]
+
+### Unresolved Questions
+[If any]
+```
+
+## Guidelines
+
+- Constructive, pragmatic feedback
+- Acknowledge good practices
+- Security best practices priority
+- Verify plan TODO list completion
+- Scout edge cases BEFORE reviewing