@groupby/ai-dev 0.1.0

package/teams/teams/brain-studio/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+name: 'code-review'
+description: 'Perform a standardized code review on the current changes. Use this when needing to evaluate how well the code matches our architecture docs, code quality, and so on.'
+allowed-tools:
+  - execute/runInTerminal
+  - edit/editFiles
+  - edit/createFile
+  - atlassian-rovo/*
+---
+
+# Brain Studio — Code Review
+
+## Setup
+
+1. Use #tool:execute/runInTerminal to run `git diff origin/main...HEAD`. If that yields nothing, fall back to `git diff HEAD`. Use this output as the set of changes under review.
+2. Use #tool:execute/runInTerminal to run `git branch --show-current` and extract the Jira ticket key from the branch name (e.g. `BS-1056` from `BS-1056-my-feature`). If a ticket key is found, use the Atlassian Rovo MCP to fetch the issue and use its description and acceptance criteria to evaluate whether the code fulfils the ticket's intent.
+3. Inspect the diff to understand what types of changes are involved.
+4. Apply the **Doc Routing Table** in `.github/copilot-instructions.md` — use the change types you identified to determine which architecture docs to load. Use those docs as your source of truth throughout the review.
+5. If the codebase contradicts the docs, the **docs represent the target state** — flag the discrepancy rather than normalising the legacy pattern.
+
+---
+
+## Review
+
+Evaluate the changes across these areas. Let the loaded architecture docs govern the specific standards — do not invent rules not found there.
+
+1. **Code Quality** — single responsibility principle, clarity, naming, redundancy, complexity, consistency with documented patterns
+2. **Regressions** — silent breakage, unexpected behaviour changes, altered logic outside of the stated scope of the ticket, downstream impact
+3. **Security** — input validation, sensitive data handling, auth correctness
+4. **Performance** — inefficient or unnecessarily expensive code, unnecessary re-renders, missing cleanups, over-importing
+5. **Error handling** — async error paths covered, error messaging in place, graceful degradation, no swallowed errors
+6. **Accessibility** — semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, focus management
+7. **Testing** — coverage of new logic, edge cases, error paths; flag superfluous tests
+8. **Documentation** — non-obvious logic commented; JSDoc updated where needed, architecture docs updated if the change introduces a new pattern or deviates from existing ones
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+- **Inline comments** for specific lines or blocks.
+- **Top-level observations** for broad themes or praise.
+- Prioritise by severity: 🔴 blocking / 🟡 important / 🔵 minor.
+- Do **not** include your reasoning steps or to-do list.
+- Close with a witty quatrain summarising the PR. 🎭
+
+Save the review to `docs/code-reviews/<branch-name>-code-review.md` (use the full branch name from Setup step 2). Confirm the file has been written.