@runchr/gstack-antigravity 0.1.0

package/gstack-origin/review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+---
+name: review
+version: 1.0.0
+description: |
+  Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust
+  boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when
+  asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", or "check my diff".
+  Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes.
+allowed-tools:
+  - Bash
+  - Read
+  - Edit
+  - Write
+  - Grep
+  - Glob
+  - Agent
+  - AskUserQuestion
+  - WebSearch
+---
+
+{{PREAMBLE}}
+
+{{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}
+
+# Pre-Landing PR Review
+
+You are running the `/review` workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff against the base branch for structural issues that tests don't catch.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Check branch
+
+1. Run `git branch --show-current` to get the current branch.
+2. If on the base branch, output: **"Nothing to review — you're on the base branch or have no changes against it."** and stop.
+3. Run `git fetch origin <base> --quiet && git diff origin/<base> --stat` to check if there's a diff. If no diff, output the same message and stop.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.5: Scope Drift Detection
+
+Before reviewing code quality, check: **did they build what was requested — nothing more, nothing less?**
+
+1. Read `TODOS.md` (if it exists). Read PR description (`gh pr view --json body --jq .body 2>/dev/null || true`).
+   Read commit messages (`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline`).
+   **If no PR exists:** rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
+2. Identify the **stated intent** — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
+3. Run `git diff origin/<base> --stat` and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
+4. Evaluate with skepticism:
+
+   **SCOPE CREEP detection:**
+   - Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent
+   - New features or refactors not mentioned in the plan
+   - "While I was in there..." changes that expand blast radius
+
+   **MISSING REQUIREMENTS detection:**
+   - Requirements from TODOS.md/PR description not addressed in the diff
+   - Test coverage gaps for stated requirements
+   - Partial implementations (started but not finished)
+
+5. Output (before the main review begins):
+   ```
+   Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
+   Intent: <1-line summary of what was requested>
+   Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
+   [If drift: list each out-of-scope change]
+   [If missing: list each unaddressed requirement]
+   ```
+
+6. This is **INFORMATIONAL** — does not block the review. Proceed to Step 2.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2: Read the checklist
+
+Read `.claude/skills/review/checklist.md`.
+
+**If the file cannot be read, STOP and report the error.** Do not proceed without the checklist.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2.5: Check for Greptile review comments
+
+Read `.claude/skills/review/greptile-triage.md` and follow the fetch, filter, classify, and **escalation detection** steps.
+
+**If no PR exists, `gh` fails, API returns an error, or there are zero Greptile comments:** Skip this step silently. Greptile integration is additive — the review works without it.
+
+**If Greptile comments are found:** Store the classifications (VALID & ACTIONABLE, VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED, FALSE POSITIVE, SUPPRESSED) — you will need them in Step 5.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3: Get the diff
+
+Fetch the latest base branch to avoid false positives from stale local state:
+
+```bash
+git fetch origin <base> --quiet
+```
+
+Run `git diff origin/<base>` to get the full diff. This includes both committed and uncommitted changes against the latest base branch.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4: Two-pass review
+
+Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes:
+
+1. **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** SQL & Data Safety, Race Conditions & Concurrency, LLM Output Trust Boundary, Enum & Value Completeness
+2. **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Conditional Side Effects, Magic Numbers & String Coupling, Dead Code & Consistency, LLM Prompt Issues, Test Gaps, View/Frontend, Performance & Bundle Impact
+
+**Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient.
+
+**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior):
+- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use
+- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround
+- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions)
+
+Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge.
+
+Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4.5: Design Review (conditional)
+
+{{DESIGN_REVIEW_LITE}}
+
+Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the same Fix-First flow in Step 5 — AUTO-FIX for mechanical CSS fixes, ASK for everything else.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
+
+{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
+
+This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5: Fix-First Review
+
+**Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
+
+Output a summary header: `Pre-Landing Review: N issues (X critical, Y informational)`
+
+### Step 5a: Classify each finding
+
+For each finding, classify as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic in
+checklist.md. Critical findings lean toward ASK; informational findings lean
+toward AUTO-FIX.
+
+### Step 5b: Auto-fix all AUTO-FIX items
+
+Apply each fix directly. For each one, output a one-line summary:
+`[AUTO-FIXED] [file:line] Problem → what you did`
+
+### Step 5c: Batch-ask about ASK items
+
+If there are ASK items remaining, present them in ONE AskUserQuestion:
+
+- List each item with a number, the severity label, the problem, and a recommended fix
+- For each item, provide options: A) Fix as recommended, B) Skip
+- Include an overall RECOMMENDATION
+
+Example format:
+```
+I auto-fixed 5 issues. 2 need your input:
+
+1. [CRITICAL] app/models/post.rb:42 — Race condition in status transition
+   Fix: Add `WHERE status = 'draft'` to the UPDATE
+   → A) Fix  B) Skip
+
+2. [INFORMATIONAL] app/services/generator.rb:88 — LLM output not type-checked before DB write
+   Fix: Add JSON schema validation
+   → A) Fix  B) Skip
+
+RECOMMENDATION: Fix both — #1 is a real race condition, #2 prevents silent data corruption.
+```
+
+If 3 or fewer ASK items, you may use individual AskUserQuestion calls instead of batching.
+
+### Step 5d: Apply user-approved fixes
+
+Apply fixes for items where the user chose "Fix." Output what was fixed.
+
+If no ASK items exist (everything was AUTO-FIX), skip the question entirely.
+
+### Verification of claims
+
+Before producing the final review output:
+- If you claim "this pattern is safe" → cite the specific line proving safety
+- If you claim "this is handled elsewhere" → read and cite the handling code
+- If you claim "tests cover this" → name the test file and method
+- Never say "likely handled" or "probably tested" — verify or flag as unknown
+
+**Rationalization prevention:** "This looks fine" is not a finding. Either cite evidence it IS fine, or flag it as unverified.
+
+### Greptile comment resolution
+
+After outputting your own findings, if Greptile comments were classified in Step 2.5:
+
+**Include a Greptile summary in your output header:** `+ N Greptile comments (X valid, Y fixed, Z FP)`
+
+Before replying to any comment, run the **Escalation Detection** algorithm from greptile-triage.md to determine whether to use Tier 1 (friendly) or Tier 2 (firm) reply templates.
+
+1. **VALID & ACTIONABLE comments:** These are included in your findings — they follow the Fix-First flow (auto-fixed if mechanical, batched into ASK if not) (A: Fix it now, B: Acknowledge, C: False positive). If the user chooses A (fix), reply using the **Fix reply template** from greptile-triage.md (include inline diff + explanation). If the user chooses C (false positive), reply using the **False Positive reply template** (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history.
+
+2. **FALSE POSITIVE comments:** Present each one via AskUserQuestion:
+   - Show the Greptile comment: file:line (or [top-level]) + body summary + permalink URL
+   - Explain concisely why it's a false positive
+   - Options:
+     - A) Reply to Greptile explaining why this is incorrect (recommended if clearly wrong)
+     - B) Fix it anyway (if low-effort and harmless)
+     - C) Ignore — don't reply, don't fix
+
+   If the user chooses A, reply using the **False Positive reply template** from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history.
+
+3. **VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED comments:** Reply using the **Already Fixed reply template** from greptile-triage.md — no AskUserQuestion needed:
+   - Include what was done and the fixing commit SHA
+   - Save to both per-project and global greptile-history
+
+4. **SUPPRESSED comments:** Skip silently — these are known false positives from previous triage.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5.5: TODOS cross-reference
+
+Read `TODOS.md` in the repository root (if it exists). Cross-reference the PR against open TODOs:
+
+- **Does this PR close any open TODOs?** If yes, note which items in your output: "This PR addresses TODO: <title>"
+- **Does this PR create work that should become a TODO?** If yes, flag it as an informational finding.
+- **Are there related TODOs that provide context for this review?** If yes, reference them when discussing related findings.
+
+If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip this step silently.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5.6: Documentation staleness check
+
+Cross-reference the diff against documentation files. For each `.md` file in the repo root (README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, CLAUDE.md, etc.):
+
+1. Check if code changes in the diff affect features, components, or workflows described in that doc file.
+2. If the doc file was NOT updated in this branch but the code it describes WAS changed, flag it as an INFORMATIONAL finding:
+   "Documentation may be stale: [file] describes [feature/component] but code changed in this branch. Consider running `/document-release`."
+
+This is informational only — never critical. The fix action is `/document-release`.
+
+If no documentation files exist, skip this step silently.
+
+---
+
+{{ADVERSARIAL_STEP}}
+
+## Important Rules
+
+- **Read the FULL diff before commenting.** Do not flag issues already addressed in the diff.
+- **Fix-first, not read-only.** AUTO-FIX items are applied directly. ASK items are only applied after user approval. Never commit, push, or create PRs — that's /ship's job.
+- **Be terse.** One line problem, one line fix. No preamble.
+- **Only flag real problems.** Skip anything that's fine.
+- **Use Greptile reply templates from greptile-triage.md.** Every reply includes evidence. Never post vague replies.

package/gstack-origin/review/TODOS-format.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# TODOS.md Format Reference
+
+Shared reference for the canonical TODOS.md format. Referenced by `/ship` (Step 5.5) and `/plan-ceo-review` (TODOS.md updates section) to ensure consistent TODO item structure.
+
+---
+
+## File Structure
+
+```markdown
+# TODOS
+
+## <Skill/Component>     ← e.g., ## Browse, ## Ship, ## Review, ## Infrastructure
+<items sorted P0 first, then P1, P2, P3, P4>
+
+## Completed
+<finished items with completion annotation>
+```
+
+**Sections:** Organize by skill or component (`## Browse`, `## Ship`, `## Review`, `## QA`, `## Retro`, `## Infrastructure`). Within each section, sort items by priority (P0 at top).
+
+---
+
+## TODO Item Format
+
+Each item is an H3 under its section:
+
+```markdown
+### <Title>
+
+**What:** One-line description of the work.
+
+**Why:** The concrete problem it solves or value it unlocks.
+
+**Context:** Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation, the current state, and where to start.
+
+**Effort:** S / M / L / XL
+**Priority:** P0 / P1 / P2 / P3 / P4
+**Depends on:** <prerequisites, or "None">
+```
+
+**Required fields:** What, Why, Context, Effort, Priority
+**Optional fields:** Depends on, Blocked by
+
+---
+
+## Priority Definitions
+
+- **P0** — Blocking: must be done before next release
+- **P1** — Critical: should be done this cycle
+- **P2** — Important: do when P0/P1 are clear
+- **P3** — Nice-to-have: revisit after adoption/usage data
+- **P4** — Someday: good idea, no urgency
+
+---
+
+## Completed Item Format
+
+When an item is completed, move it to the `## Completed` section preserving its original content and appending:
+
+```markdown
+**Completed:** vX.Y.Z (YYYY-MM-DD)
+```

package/gstack-origin/review/checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+# Pre-Landing Review Checklist
+
+## Instructions
+
+Review the `git diff origin/main` output for the issues listed below. Be specific — cite `file:line` and suggest fixes. Skip anything that's fine. Only flag real problems.
+
+**Two-pass review:**
+- **Pass 1 (CRITICAL):** Run SQL & Data Safety and LLM Output Trust Boundary first. Highest severity.
+- **Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL):** Run all remaining categories. Lower severity but still actioned.
+
+All findings get action via Fix-First Review: obvious mechanical fixes are applied automatically,
+genuinely ambiguous issues are batched into a single user question.
+
+**Output format:**
+
+```
+Pre-Landing Review: N issues (X critical, Y informational)
+
+**AUTO-FIXED:**
+- [file:line] Problem → fix applied
+
+**NEEDS INPUT:**
+- [file:line] Problem description
+  Recommended fix: suggested fix
+```
+
+If no issues found: `Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.`
+
+Be terse. For each issue: one line describing the problem, one line with the fix. No preamble, no summaries, no "looks good overall."
+
+---
+
+## Review Categories
+
+### Pass 1 — CRITICAL
+
+#### SQL & Data Safety
+- String interpolation in SQL (even if values are `.to_i`/`.to_f` — use parameterized queries (Rails: sanitize_sql_array/Arel; Node: prepared statements; Python: parameterized queries))
+- TOCTOU races: check-then-set patterns that should be atomic `WHERE` + `update_all`
+- Bypassing model validations for direct DB writes (Rails: update_column; Django: QuerySet.update(); Prisma: raw queries)
+- N+1 queries: Missing eager loading (Rails: .includes(); SQLAlchemy: joinedload(); Prisma: include) for associations used in loops/views
+
+#### Race Conditions & Concurrency
+- Read-check-write without uniqueness constraint or catch duplicate key error and retry (e.g., `where(hash:).first` then `save!` without handling concurrent insert)
+- find-or-create without unique DB index — concurrent calls can create duplicates
+- Status transitions that don't use atomic `WHERE old_status = ? UPDATE SET new_status` — concurrent updates can skip or double-apply transitions
+- Unsafe HTML rendering (Rails: .html_safe/raw(); React: dangerouslySetInnerHTML; Vue: v-html; Django: |safe/mark_safe) on user-controlled data (XSS)
+
+#### LLM Output Trust Boundary
+- LLM-generated values (emails, URLs, names) written to DB or passed to mailers without format validation. Add lightweight guards (`EMAIL_REGEXP`, `URI.parse`, `.strip`) before persisting.
+- Structured tool output (arrays, hashes) accepted without type/shape checks before database writes.
+
+#### Enum & Value Completeness
+When the diff introduces a new enum value, status string, tier name, or type constant:
+- **Trace it through every consumer.** Read (don't just grep — READ) each file that switches on, filters by, or displays that value. If any consumer doesn't handle the new value, flag it. Common miss: adding a value to the frontend dropdown but the backend model/compute method doesn't persist it.
+- **Check allowlists/filter arrays.** Search for arrays or `%w[]` lists containing sibling values (e.g., if adding "revise" to tiers, find every `%w[quick lfg mega]` and verify "revise" is included where needed).
+- **Check `case`/`if-elsif` chains.** If existing code branches on the enum, does the new value fall through to a wrong default?
+To do this: use Grep to find all references to the sibling values (e.g., grep for "lfg" or "mega" to find all tier consumers). Read each match. This step requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.
+
+### Pass 2 — INFORMATIONAL
+
+#### Conditional Side Effects
+- Code paths that branch on a condition but forget to apply a side effect on one branch. Example: item promoted to verified but URL only attached when a secondary condition is true — the other branch promotes without the URL, creating an inconsistent record.
+- Log messages that claim an action happened but the action was conditionally skipped. The log should reflect what actually occurred.
+
+#### Magic Numbers & String Coupling
+- Bare numeric literals used in multiple files — should be named constants documented together
+- Error message strings used as query filters elsewhere (grep for the string — is anything matching on it?)
+
+#### Dead Code & Consistency
+- Variables assigned but never read
+- Version mismatch between PR title and VERSION/CHANGELOG files
+- CHANGELOG entries that describe changes inaccurately (e.g., "changed from X to Y" when X never existed)
+- Comments/docstrings that describe old behavior after the code changed
+
+#### LLM Prompt Issues
+- 0-indexed lists in prompts (LLMs reliably return 1-indexed)
+- Prompt text listing available tools/capabilities that don't match what's actually wired up in the `tool_classes`/`tools` array
+- Word/token limits stated in multiple places that could drift
+
+#### Test Gaps
+- Negative-path tests that assert type/status but not the side effects (URL attached? field populated? callback fired?)
+- Assertions on string content without checking format (e.g., asserting title present but not URL format)
+- `.expects(:something).never` missing when a code path should explicitly NOT call an external service
+- Security enforcement features (blocking, rate limiting, auth) without integration tests verifying the enforcement path works end-to-end
+
+#### Completeness Gaps
+- Shortcut implementations where the complete version would cost <30 minutes CC time (e.g., partial enum handling, incomplete error paths, missing edge cases that are straightforward to add)
+- Options presented with only human-team effort estimates — should show both human and CC+gstack time
+- Test coverage gaps where adding the missing tests is a "lake" not an "ocean" (e.g., missing negative-path tests, missing edge case tests that mirror happy-path structure)
+- Features implemented at 80-90% when 100% is achievable with modest additional code
+
+#### Crypto & Entropy
+- Truncation of data instead of hashing (last N chars instead of SHA-256) — less entropy, easier collisions
+- `rand()` / `Random.rand` for security-sensitive values — use `SecureRandom` instead
+- Non-constant-time comparisons (`==`) on secrets or tokens — vulnerable to timing attacks
+
+#### Time Window Safety
+- Date-key lookups that assume "today" covers 24h — report at 8am PT only sees midnight→8am under today's key
+- Mismatched time windows between related features — one uses hourly buckets, another uses daily keys for the same data
+
+#### Type Coercion at Boundaries
+- Values crossing Ruby→JSON→JS boundaries where type could change (numeric vs string) — hash/digest inputs must normalize types
+- Hash/digest inputs that don't call `.to_s` or equivalent before serialization — `{ cores: 8 }` vs `{ cores: "8" }` produce different hashes
+
+#### View/Frontend
+- Inline `<style>` blocks in partials (re-parsed every render)
+- O(n*m) lookups in views (`Array#find` in a loop instead of `index_by` hash)
+- Ruby-side `.select{}` filtering on DB results that could be a `WHERE` clause (unless intentionally avoiding leading-wildcard `LIKE`)
+
+#### Performance & Bundle Impact
+- New `dependencies` entries in package.json that are known-heavy: moment.js (→ date-fns, 330KB→22KB), lodash full (→ lodash-es or per-function imports), jquery, core-js full polyfill
+- Significant lockfile growth (many new transitive dependencies from a single addition)
+- Images added without `loading="lazy"` or explicit width/height attributes (causes layout shift / CLS)
+- Large static assets committed to repo (>500KB per file)
+- Synchronous `<script>` tags without async/defer
+- CSS `@import` in stylesheets (blocks parallel loading — use bundler imports instead)
+- `useEffect` with fetch that depends on another fetch result (request waterfall — combine or parallelize)
+- Named → default import switches on tree-shakeable libraries (breaks tree-shaking)
+- New `require()` calls in ESM codebases
+
+**DO NOT flag:**
+- devDependencies additions (don't affect production bundle)
+- Dynamic `import()` calls (code splitting — these are good)
+- Small utility additions (<5KB gzipped)
+- Server-side-only dependencies
+
+---
+
+## Severity Classification
+
+```
+CRITICAL (highest severity):      INFORMATIONAL (lower severity):
+├─ SQL & Data Safety              ├─ Conditional Side Effects
+├─ Race Conditions & Concurrency  ├─ Magic Numbers & String Coupling
+├─ LLM Output Trust Boundary      ├─ Dead Code & Consistency
+└─ Enum & Value Completeness      ├─ LLM Prompt Issues
+                                   ├─ Test Gaps
+                                   ├─ Completeness Gaps
+                                   ├─ Crypto & Entropy
+                                   ├─ Time Window Safety
+                                   ├─ Type Coercion at Boundaries
+                                   ├─ View/Frontend
+                                   └─ Performance & Bundle Impact
+
+All findings are actioned via Fix-First Review. Severity determines
+presentation order and classification of AUTO-FIX vs ASK — critical
+findings lean toward ASK (they're riskier), informational findings
+lean toward AUTO-FIX (they're more mechanical).
+```
+
+---
+
+## Fix-First Heuristic
+
+This heuristic is referenced by both `/review` and `/ship`. It determines whether
+the agent auto-fixes a finding or asks the user.
+
+```
+AUTO-FIX (agent fixes without asking):     ASK (needs human judgment):
+├─ Dead code / unused variables            ├─ Security (auth, XSS, injection)
+├─ N+1 queries (missing eager loading)      ├─ Race conditions
+├─ Stale comments contradicting code       ├─ Design decisions
+├─ Magic numbers → named constants         ├─ Large fixes (>20 lines)
+├─ Missing LLM output validation           ├─ Enum completeness
+├─ Version/path mismatches                 ├─ Removing functionality
+├─ Variables assigned but never read       └─ Anything changing user-visible
+└─ Inline styles, O(n*m) view lookups        behavior
+```
+
+**Rule of thumb:** If the fix is mechanical and a senior engineer would apply it
+without discussion, it's AUTO-FIX. If reasonable engineers could disagree about
+the fix, it's ASK.
+
+**Critical findings default toward ASK** (they're inherently riskier).
+**Informational findings default toward AUTO-FIX** (they're more mechanical).
+
+---
+
+## Suppressions — DO NOT flag these
+
+- "X is redundant with Y" when the redundancy is harmless and aids readability (e.g., `present?` redundant with `length > 20`)
+- "Add a comment explaining why this threshold/constant was chosen" — thresholds change during tuning, comments rot
+- "This assertion could be tighter" when the assertion already covers the behavior
+- Suggesting consistency-only changes (wrapping a value in a conditional to match how another constant is guarded)
+- "Regex doesn't handle edge case X" when the input is constrained and X never occurs in practice
+- "Test exercises multiple guards simultaneously" — that's fine, tests don't need to isolate every guard
+- Eval threshold changes (max_actionable, min scores) — these are tuned empirically and change constantly
+- Harmless no-ops (e.g., `.reject` on an element that's never in the array)
+- ANYTHING already addressed in the diff you're reviewing — read the FULL diff before commenting

package/gstack-origin/review/design-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# Design Review Checklist (Lite)
+
+> **Subset of DESIGN_METHODOLOGY** — when adding items here, also update `generateDesignMethodology()` in `scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts`, and vice versa.
+
+## Instructions
+
+This checklist applies to **source code in the diff** — not rendered output. Read each changed frontend file (full file, not just diff hunks) and flag anti-patterns.
+
+**Trigger:** Only run this checklist if the diff touches frontend files. Use `gstack-diff-scope` to detect:
+
+```bash
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)
+```
+
+If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=false`, skip the entire design review silently.
+
+**DESIGN.md calibration:** If `DESIGN.md` or `design-system.md` exists in the repo root, read it first. All findings are calibrated against the project's stated design system. Patterns explicitly blessed in DESIGN.md are NOT flagged. If no DESIGN.md exists, use universal design principles.
+
+---
+
+## Confidence Tiers
+
+Each item is tagged with a detection confidence level:
+
+- **[HIGH]** — Reliably detectable via grep/pattern match. Definitive findings.
+- **[MEDIUM]** — Detectable via pattern aggregation or heuristic. Flag as findings but expect some noise.
+- **[LOW]** — Requires understanding visual intent. Present as: "Possible issue — verify visually or run /design-review."
+
+---
+
+## Classification
+
+**AUTO-FIX** (mechanical CSS fixes only — HIGH confidence, no design judgment needed):
+- `outline: none` without replacement → add `outline: revert` or `&:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid currentColor; }`
+- `!important` in new CSS → remove and fix specificity
+- `font-size` < 16px on body text → bump to 16px
+
+**ASK** (everything else — requires design judgment):
+- All AI slop findings, typography structure, spacing choices, interaction state gaps, DESIGN.md violations
+
+**LOW confidence items** → present as "Possible: [description]. Verify visually or run /design-review." Never AUTO-FIX.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+Design Review: N issues (X auto-fixable, Y need input, Z possible)
+
+**AUTO-FIXED:**
+- [file:line] Problem → fix applied
+
+**NEEDS INPUT:**
+- [file:line] Problem description
+  Recommended fix: suggested fix
+
+**POSSIBLE (verify visually):**
+- [file:line] Possible issue — verify with /design-review
+```
+
+If no issues found: `Design Review: No issues found.`
+
+If no frontend files changed: skip silently, no output.
+
+---
+
+## Categories
+
+### 1. AI Slop Detection (6 items) — highest priority
+
+These are the telltale signs of AI-generated UI that no designer at a respected studio would ship.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Purple/violet/indigo gradient backgrounds or blue-to-purple color schemes. Look for `linear-gradient` with values in the `#6366f1`–`#8b5cf6` range, or CSS custom properties resolving to purple/violet.
+
+- **[LOW]** The 3-column feature grid: icon-in-colored-circle + bold title + 2-line description, repeated 3x symmetrically. Look for a grid/flex container with exactly 3 children that each contain a circular element + heading + paragraph.
+
+- **[LOW]** Icons in colored circles as section decoration. Look for elements with `border-radius: 50%` + a background color used as decorative containers for icons.
+
+- **[HIGH]** Centered everything: `text-align: center` on all headings, descriptions, and cards. Grep for `text-align: center` density — if >60% of text containers use center alignment, flag it.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Uniform bubbly border-radius on every element: same large radius (16px+) applied to cards, buttons, inputs, containers uniformly. Aggregate `border-radius` values — if >80% use the same value ≥16px, flag it.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Generic hero copy: "Welcome to [X]", "Unlock the power of...", "Your all-in-one solution for...", "Revolutionize your...", "Streamline your workflow". Grep HTML/JSX content for these patterns.
+
+### 2. Typography (4 items)
+
+- **[HIGH]** Body text `font-size` < 16px. Grep for `font-size` declarations on `body`, `p`, `.text`, or base styles. Values below 16px (or 1rem when base is 16px) are flagged.
+
+- **[HIGH]** More than 3 font families introduced in the diff. Count distinct `font-family` declarations. Flag if >3 unique families appear across changed files.
+
+- **[HIGH]** Heading hierarchy skipping levels: `h1` followed by `h3` without an `h2` in the same file/component. Check HTML/JSX for heading tags.
+
+- **[HIGH]** Blacklisted fonts: Papyrus, Comic Sans, Lobster, Impact, Jokerman. Grep `font-family` for these names.
+
+### 3. Spacing & Layout (4 items)
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Arbitrary spacing values not on a 4px or 8px scale, when DESIGN.md specifies a spacing scale. Check `margin`, `padding`, `gap` values against the stated scale. Only flag when DESIGN.md defines a scale.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Fixed widths without responsive handling: `width: NNNpx` on containers without `max-width` or `@media` breakpoints. Risk of horizontal scroll on mobile.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Missing `max-width` on text containers: body text or paragraph containers with no `max-width` set, allowing lines >75 characters. Check for `max-width` on text wrappers.
+
+- **[HIGH]** `!important` in new CSS rules. Grep for `!important` in added lines. Almost always a specificity escape hatch that should be fixed properly.
+
+### 4. Interaction States (3 items)
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Interactive elements (buttons, links, inputs) missing hover/focus states. Check if `:hover` and `:focus` or `:focus-visible` pseudo-classes exist for new interactive element styles.
+
+- **[HIGH]** `outline: none` or `outline: 0` without a replacement focus indicator. Grep for `outline:\s*none` or `outline:\s*0`. This removes keyboard accessibility.
+
+- **[LOW]** Touch targets < 44px on interactive elements. Check `min-height`/`min-width`/`padding` on buttons and links. Requires computing effective size from multiple properties — low confidence from code alone.
+
+### 5. DESIGN.md Violations (3 items, conditional)
+
+Only apply if `DESIGN.md` or `design-system.md` exists:
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Colors not in the stated palette. Compare color values in changed CSS against the palette defined in DESIGN.md.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Fonts not in the stated typography section. Compare `font-family` values against DESIGN.md's font list.
+
+- **[MEDIUM]** Spacing values outside the stated scale. Compare `margin`/`padding`/`gap` values against DESIGN.md's spacing scale.
+
+---
+
+## Suppressions
+
+Do NOT flag:
+- Patterns explicitly documented in DESIGN.md as intentional choices
+- Third-party/vendor CSS files (node_modules, vendor directories)
+- CSS resets or normalize stylesheets
+- Test fixture files
+- Generated/minified CSS