Skill Introduction

Overview

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/PRD 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".

Core value

Turns reusable Documentation know-how into an installable skill, helping users complete github, community, claude, subagent work faster.

Target users

Developers, testers, and maintainers who handle Documentation tasks in Focus Code.
Teams that already trust workflows or content from mattpocock.
Users who want standardized prompts, steps, or conventions instead of repeating setup work.

Best practices

Read the skill content first to confirm required inputs, expected outputs, and dependencies.
Try it on a small task before relying on it for critical work.
Add project-specific constraints such as coding style, target platform, test expectations, and delivery format.
For external sources, verify the source link, version, and recent maintenance activity.

Best use cases

Tasks related to github, community, claude, subagent that need a reusable execution flow.
Converting a community repo, team convention, or personal workflow into day-to-day assistance.
Starting from a proven skill instead of writing prompts or procedures from scratch.

Limits and boundaries

Results depend on the quality of the original skill content and may need human correction.
It does not replace code review, tests, security review, or professional judgment.
External tools, APIs, account permissions, and local dependencies still need separate setup.

Differentiation

Structured around Documentation, making it easier to discover and reuse than loose prompt snippets.
Marked as GitHub, which helps users judge trust and maintenance expectations.
Keeps the original source link available for repository, documentation, or discussion follow-up.
Tagged with github, community, claude, subagent, so it can be filtered by concrete task intent.

Install and use

Install

Copy Install Command

focus install review-0abd08

View source

Detail Preview

SKILL.md

Primary filemarkdown5 KB

name: 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/PRD 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".

Review

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 / PRD / 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 — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or main?" Don't proceed until you have 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.

2. Identify the spec source

Look for the originating spec, in this order:

Issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45, GitLab !67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow in docs/agents/issue-tracker.md.
A path the user passed as an argument.
A PRD/spec file under docs/, specs/, or .scratch/ matching the branch name or feature.
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. Common locations:

CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
CONTRIBUTING.md
CONTEXT.md, CONTEXT-MAP.md, per-context CONTEXT.md files
docs/adr/ (architectural decisions are standards)
.editorconfig, eslint.config.*, biome.json, prettier.config.*, tsconfig.json (machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)
Any STYLE.md, STANDARDS.md, STYLEGUIDE.md, or similar at the repo root or under docs/

Collect the list of files. The Standards sub-agent will read them.

4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel

Send a single message with two Agent tool calls. Use the general-purpose subagent for both.

Standards sub-agent prompt — include:

The full diff command and commit list.
The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
The brief: "Read the standards docs. Then read the diff. Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. 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: "Read the spec. Then read the diff. 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 so the user can see them independently.

End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst single issue (if any) flagged.

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.

review