@edupia-tutor/spec-driven-docs 0.14.0

package/commands/review-code.tmpl

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# /review-code — Read-Only Code Review
+
+**CAUTION: READ-ONLY. Report only, do NOT make changes.**
+
+## Gate
+{{include:steps/gate.md}}
+
+*Note: For this command, the target in Step 1 is a UC-ID, file path, or current branch name. Skip to context loading immediately after resolving the target.*
+
+## Context
+{{include:steps/context-loader.md}}
+
+---
+
+## Pre-Review Scan
+
+*(Separate from the Gate CHECKPOINT — this lists the actual files and scenarios in scope.)*
+
+Scan for implementation files and scenarios, then display:
+
+```
+Review Scope — {UC-ID}
+──────────────────────────────────────
+UC        : {UC-ID}
+Files     : {list of files tagged @trace.implements={UC-ID}}
+Scenarios : {N} scenarios in .feature file
+
+Proceed with review? (Y/N)
+```
+
+Wait for explicit "Y" before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Review Dimensions
+
+### 1. Traceability
+- [ ] Every controller endpoint has `@trace.implements` tag?
+- [ ] Every test file has `@trace.verifies` tag?
+- [ ] No `@trace` tags on wrong layers?
+- [ ] `{paths.trace_dir}/{domain}/{prd-slug}/{UC-ID}.tsv` up to date? (if stale → run `/validate-traces {UC-ID}` first, then re-run this review)
+
+### 2. Layer Architecture (from CLAUDE.md §2)
+- [ ] Each class in the correct layer?
+- [ ] Layer dependencies flow in correct direction?
+- [ ] No layer bypassed?
+
+### 3. Coding Standards (from CLAUDE.md §3)
+- [ ] Naming conventions followed?
+- [ ] Response wrapper used consistently?
+- [ ] Exceptions thrown (not swallowed)?
+- [ ] No magic numbers, no sensitive data in logs?
+- [ ] Transaction annotations correct?
+
+### 4. Spec Compliance
+- [ ] Every scenario in .feature has an implementation?
+- [ ] No undocumented endpoints (code not backed by spec)?
+
+## Output
+
+{{include:steps/report-footer.md}}
+
+```
+/review-code Report — {UC-ID}
+Critical: {X} | Major: {Y} | Minor: {Z}
+
+### Critical
+| # | File | Line | Issue | Suggested Fix |
+
+### Major
+| # | File | Line | Issue | Suggested Fix |
+
+### Minor
+| # | File | Line | Issue | Suggested Fix |
+
+Output Artifacts: none (read-only)
+
+Verdict: APPROVED ✅ | NEEDS_FIX ❌
+
+If APPROVED ✅:
+  Next: /dev-gen-test {UC-ID}
+
+If NEEDS_FIX ❌:
+  - Small fix (1–3 lines, no logic change) → fix inline → re-run /review-code {UC-ID}
+  - Logic / architecture issue             → /fix-bug {TICKET_ID}
+  - Spec mismatch (code ≠ scenario)        → /generate-code {feature-file}  (re-gen affected UC)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Offer to Record Lessons (optional)
+
+For each **Critical/Major** finding that represents a **repeatable AI mistake** during code generation
+(an architecture/standards violation the AI is likely to make again — NOT a one-off typo or an external cause), ask:
+
+```
+Finding "{issue}" looks like a repeatable mistake.
+Record it as a project lesson so /generate-code won't repeat it? (Y/N)
+```
+
+If `Y` → run the capture procedure below with `category=code-gen`, `source=/review-code {UC-ID}`,
+`scope` = the affected domain or file glob.
+
+{{include:steps/capture-lesson.md}}