@drafthq/draft 2.7.0

package/skills/assist-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+name: assist-review
+description: Reviewing someone else's PR for handoff/sign-off. Isolates structural changes from trivial edits, flags HLD/LLD drift and guardrail violations, points the reviewer at what to scrutinize. Use when prepping to review another engineer's work — NOT for first-pass self-review (use review / quick-review).
+---
+
+# Draft Assist Review: Human-in-the-Loop Gateway
+
+Help human reviewers effectively review an executed track without shifting the entire cognitive burden onto them.
+
+## Red Flags - STOP if you're:
+- Conducting standard unit tests; use `/draft:review` for that.
+- Fixing code rather than explaining logic and risk profiles to the human.
+- Reviewing output without first summarizing the source `spec.md` intent.
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Constraints
+
+1. **Context Extraction:**
+   - Load the track's `spec.md` and `plan.md`.
+   - Load the track's `hld.md` and `lld.md` if present — extract Key Design Decisions, Alternatives Considered, and (LLD) class invariants and error policies.
+   - Re-summarize the **Intent** of what this track was supposed to achieve in exactly two sentences.
+
+2. **Blast Radius Isolation:**
+   - Scan the `git diff` generated by the target track.
+   - Separate trivial edits (naming, routing adjustments, formatting) from **Structural Edits** (schema updates, concurrency alterations, middleware auth changes, API surface changes).
+   - Present structural edits first — these are where review time should be spent.
+
+3. **Generate the Human Helper Guide:**
+   - Instead of a traditional bug hunt, generate an executive summary containing a **Risk Assessment**.
+   - For each structural edit, cite the originating decision: *"I chose `[Pattern]` for `[File/Function]` because hld.md §Key Design Decisions / Alternatives Considered selected it over [rejected alternative]. You should specifically scrutinize lines X–Y because they touch [global state / auth boundary / shared schema]."* Fall back to `architecture.md` only when no HLD exists.
+   - Highlight any code that violates an LLD §Classes and Interfaces invariant (thread safety, idempotency, ordering) or contradicts an HLD §Checklist claim (e.g., "code introduces a new shared mutex but HLD declared single-writer").
+   - Highlight any code that touches shared state, auth boundaries, data persistence, or concurrency.
+
+4. **Knowledge Base Verification:**
+   - Verify if any pattern implemented violates the `draft/guardrails.md` learned anti-patterns.
+   - Verify the diff is consistent with hld.md/lld.md commitments. If the diff makes structural changes not reflected in HLD §Detailed Design or LLD §Classes/Interfaces: flag for the reviewer that HLD/LLD must be amended (`/draft:change`) before merge.
+   - If so, specifically direct the human reviewer to veto the change unless an ADR is created via `/draft:adr`.
+
+5. **Output Format:**
+   - **Track Intent** (2 sentences)
+   - **HLD/LLD Decision Trace** (per structural edit: which §Key Design Decision or §Alternatives Considered row drove this code; or "no HLD justification — reviewer must request one")
+   - **Structural Edits** (table: file, change type, risk level, review guidance)
+   - **Trivial Edits** (collapsed list — skim only)
+   - **HLD/LLD Drift** (diff makes claims that HLD/LLD does not document — recommend `/draft:change`)
+   - **Guardrail Violations** (if any — with ADR recommendation)
+   - **Suggested Review Order** (which files to review first, based on blast radius)
+
+---