@rune-kit/rune 2.3.0 → 2.3.1

package/skills/review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,495 +1,489 @@
----
-name: review
-description: Code quality review — patterns, security, performance, correctness. Finds bugs, suggests improvements, triggers fix for issues found. Escalates to opus for security-critical code.
-metadata:
-  author: runedev
-  version: "0.5.0"
-  layer: L2
-  model: sonnet
-  group: development
-  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep"
----
-
-# review
-
-## Purpose
-
-Code quality analysis. Review finds bugs, bad patterns, security issues, and untested code. It does NOT fix anything — it reports findings and delegates: bugs go to rune:fix, untested code goes to rune:test, security-critical code goes to rune:sentinel.
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-A review that says "LGTM" or "code looks good" without specific file:line references is NOT a review.
-Every review MUST cite at least one specific concern, suggestion, or explicit approval per file changed.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-## Triggers
-
-- Called by `cook` Phase 5 REVIEW — after implementation complete
-- Called by `fix` for self-review on complex fixes
-- `/rune review` — manual code review
-- Auto-trigger: when PR is created or significant code changes committed
-
-## Calls (outbound)
-
-- `scout` (L2): find related code for fuller context during review
-- `test` (L2): when untested edge cases found — write tests for them
-- `fix` (L2): when bugs found during review — trigger fix
-- `sentinel` (L2): when security-critical code detected (auth, input, crypto)
-- `docs-seeker` (L3): verify API usage is current and correct
-- `hallucination-guard` (L3): verify imports and API calls in reviewed code
-- `design` (L2): when UI anti-patterns suggest missing design system — recommend design skill invocation
-- `perf` (L2): when performance patterns detected in frontend diff
-- `review-intake` (L2): structured intake for complex multi-file reviews
-- `sast` (L3): static analysis security scan on reviewed code
-- L4 extension packs: domain-specific review patterns when context matches (e.g., @rune/ui for frontend, @rune/security for auth code)
-- `neural-memory` | After review complete | Capture code quality insight
-
-## Called By (inbound)
-
-- `cook` (L1): Phase 5 REVIEW — post-implementation quality check
-- `fix` (L2): complex fix requests self-review
-- User: `/rune review` direct invocation
-- `surgeon` (L2): review refactored code quality
-- `rescue` (L1): review refactored code quality
-
-## Cross-Hub Connections
-
-- `review` → `test` — untested edge case found → test writes it
-- `review` → `fix` — bug found during review → fix applies correction
-- `review` → `scout` — needs more context → scout finds related code
-- `review` ← `fix` — complex fix requests self-review
-- `review` → `sentinel` — security-critical code → sentinel deep scan
-
-## Execution
-
-### Step 1: Scope
-
-Determine what to review.
-
-- If triggered by a commit or PR: use `Bash` with `git diff main...HEAD` or `git diff HEAD~1` to see exactly what changed
-- If triggered by a specific file or feature: use `Read` on each named file
-- If context is unclear: use `rune:scout` to identify all files touched by the change
-- List every file in scope before proceeding — do not review files outside the stated scope
-
-### Step 1.5: Blast Radius Assessment
-
-For each modified function/class, estimate its blast radius before reviewing.
-
-```
-Use Grep to count direct callers/importers of each modified symbol:
-  blast_radius = count(files importing or calling this symbol)
-```
-
-| Blast Radius | Risk | Review Depth |
-|-------------|------|-------------|
-| 1-5 callers | Low | Standard review |
-| 6-20 callers | Medium | Check all callers for compatibility |
-| 21-50 callers | High | Thorough review + regression test check |
-| 50+ callers | Critical | MUST escalate to adversarial analysis (rune:adversary) even in quick triage |
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Modifying a symbol with 50+ callers + HIGH severity change (logic, types, behavior) → adversarial analysis REQUIRED. Quick review is NOT sufficient for high-blast-radius changes.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-> Source: trailofbits/skills (3.7k★) — quantitative blast radius as escalation threshold.
-
-### Step 2: Logic Check (Production-Critical Focus)
-
-Read each changed file. Prioritize bugs that **pass CI but break production** — these are the highest-value findings because linters and type checkers already catch the rest.
-
-- Use `Read` on every file in scope
-- **Race conditions**: async operations without proper sequencing, shared mutable state, missing locks
-- **State corruption**: mutations that affect other consumers, cache invalidation gaps, stale closures
-- **Silent failures**: caught errors that swallow context, empty catch blocks, promises without rejection handling
-- **Data loss paths**: write operations without confirmation, delete without soft-delete, truncation without backup
-- **Edge cases**: empty input, null/undefined, zero, negative numbers, empty arrays, Unicode, timezone boundaries
-- Check for: logic errors, off-by-one errors, incorrect conditionals, broken async/await patterns
-- Flag each finding with file path, line number, and severity
-
-**Common patterns to flag:**
-
-```typescript
-// BAD — missing await causes race condition
-async function saveUser(data) {
-  db.users.create(data); // caller proceeds before save completes
-  return { success: true };
-}
-// GOOD
-async function saveUser(data) {
-  await db.users.create(data);
-  return { success: true };
-}
-```
-
-```typescript
-// BAD — null deref crash
-function getUsername(user) {
-  return user.profile.name.toUpperCase(); // crashes if profile or name is null
-}
-// GOOD — safe access
-function getUsername(user) {
-  return user?.profile?.name?.toUpperCase() ?? 'Anonymous';
-}
-```
-
-### Step 3: Pattern Check
-
-Check consistency with project conventions.
-
-- Compare naming against existing codebase patterns (use `Grep` to sample similar code)
-- Check file structure: is it in the right layer/directory per project conventions?
-- Check for mutations — all state changes should use immutable patterns
-- Check for hardcoded values that should be constants or config
-- Check TypeScript: no `any`, full type coverage, no non-null assertions without justification
-- Flag inconsistencies as MEDIUM or LOW depending on impact
-
-**Common patterns to flag:**
-
-```typescript
-// BAD — mutation
-function addItem(cart, item) {
-  cart.items.push(item); // mutates in place
-  return cart;
-}
-// GOOD — immutable
-function addItem(cart, item) {
-  return { ...cart, items: [...cart.items, item] };
-}
-```
-
-```typescript
-// BAD — any defeats TypeScript's purpose
-function process(data: any): any {
-  return data.items.map((i: any) => i.value);
-}
-// GOOD — typed
-function process(data: { items: Array<{ value: string }> }): string[] {
-  return data.items.map(i => i.value);
-}
-```
-
-### Step 4: Security Check
-
-Check for security-relevant issues.
-
-- Scan for: hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords in code or comments
-- Scan for: unvalidated user input passed to queries, file paths, or shell commands
-- Scan for: missing authentication checks on new routes or functions
-- Scan for: XSS vectors (unsanitized HTML output), CSRF exposure, open redirects
-- If any security-sensitive code found (auth logic, input handling, crypto, payment): call `rune:sentinel` for deep scan
-- Sentinel escalation is mandatory — do not skip it for auth or crypto code
-
-### Step 4.5: API Pit-of-Success Check
-
-For code that exposes APIs, shared utilities, or reusable interfaces, evaluate through 3 adversary personas:
-
-| Adversary | Mindset | What They Reveal |
-|-----------|---------|-----------------|
-| **The Scoundrel** | Malicious — controls config, crafts inputs, exploits edge cases | Security holes, privilege escalation, injection surfaces |
-| **The Lazy Developer** | Copy-pastes from docs, skips error handling, uses defaults | Unsafe defaults, missing validation, footgun APIs |
-| **The Confused Developer** | Misunderstands API semantics, passes wrong types, ignores return values | Ambiguous interfaces, poor naming, missing type safety |
-
-**Pit-of-Success principle**: Secure, correct usage should be the path of least resistance. If the API makes it EASIER to use it wrong than right → WARN.
-
-Check: Does the API have sensible defaults? Does misuse fail loudly (not silently)? Is the happy path obvious from the signature?
-
-**Skip if**: Code is internal-only (no external consumers), single-use utility, or test-only.
-
-> Source: trailofbits/skills (3.7k★) — 3 adversary types for API review.
-
-### Step 5: Test Coverage
-
-Identify gaps in test coverage.
-
-- Use `Bash` to check if a test file exists for each changed file
-- Use `Glob` to find test files: `**/*.test.ts`, `**/*.spec.ts`, `**/__tests__/**`
-- Read the test file and verify: are the new functions covered? are edge cases tested?
-- If untested code found: call `rune:test` with specific instructions on what to test
-- Flag as HIGH if business logic is untested, MEDIUM if utility code is untested
-
-### Step 5.5: Two-Stage Review Gate
-
-Separate spec compliance from code quality. Most reviews conflate both — this gate forces the distinction.
-
-**Stage 1 — Spec Compliance (check FIRST)**
-
-Before evaluating code quality, verify the implementation matches what was asked:
-
-- Load the originating plan, task, ticket, or `requirements.md` if available
-- Does the implementation cover every acceptance criterion? Check each one explicitly
-- Is there **under-engineering** — requirements stated but not implemented?
-- Is there **over-engineering** — abstractions, generalization, or features beyond scope?
-- Does the file/function structure match what the plan specified?
-
-Flag spec deviations as HIGH — clean code that misses requirements ships broken products.
-
-```
-# Spec Compliance Checklist
-[ ] All acceptance criteria from plan/ticket covered
-[ ] No stated requirements missing from implementation
-[ ] No unrequested features added (scope creep)
-[ ] API surface matches what was specified (signatures, endpoints, return types)
-[ ] File structure matches plan (no renamed or relocated files without justification)
-```
-
-If spec violations found: document them separately from code quality findings in the report. Label as `SPEC-MISS` or `SPEC-CREEP`.
-
-**Stage 2 — Code Quality**
-
-Proceed to Step 6 only after Stage 1 passes. Code quality findings (bugs, patterns, security, coverage) are the existing Steps 2–5 above.
-
-The review report MUST show both stages: spec compliance verdict first, then code quality findings.
-
-### Step 6: Report
-
-Produce a structured severity-ranked report.
-
-**Before reporting, apply confidence filter:**
-- Only report findings with >80% confidence it is a real issue
-- Consolidate similar issues: "8 functions missing error handling in src/services/" — not 8 separate findings
-- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate conventions found in `.eslintrc`, `CLAUDE.md`, or `CONTRIBUTING.md`
-- Adapt to project type: a `console.log` in a CLI tool is fine; in a production API handler it is not
-
-- Group findings by severity: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW
-- Include file path and line number for every finding
-- Include a Positive Notes section (good patterns observed)
-- Include a Verdict: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION
-
-After reporting:
-- If any CRITICAL findings: call `rune:fix` immediately with the finding details
-- If any HIGH findings: call `rune:fix` with the finding details
-- If untested code: call `rune:test` with specific coverage gaps identified
-- Call `neural-memory` (Capture Mode) to save any novel code quality patterns or recurring issues found.
-
-## Framework-Specific Checks
-
-Apply **only** if the framework is detected in the changed files. Skip if not relevant.
-
-**React / Next.js** (detect: `import React` or `.tsx` files)
-- `useEffect` with missing dependencies (stale closure) → flag HIGH
-- List items using index as key on reorderable lists: `key={i}` → flag MEDIUM
-- Props drilled through 3+ levels without Context or composition → flag MEDIUM
-- Client-side hooks (`useState`, `useEffect`) in Server Components (Next.js App Router) → flag HIGH
-
-**Node.js / Express** (detect: `import express` or `require('express')`)
-- Missing rate limiting on public endpoints → flag MEDIUM
-- `req.body` passed directly to DB without validation schema → flag HIGH
-- Synchronous operations blocking the event loop inside async handlers → flag HIGH
-
-**Python** (detect: `.py` files with `django`, `flask`, or `fastapi` imports)
-- `except:` bare catch without specific exception type → flag MEDIUM
-- Mutable default arguments: `def func(items=[])` → flag HIGH
-- Missing type hints on public functions (if project uses mypy/pyright) → flag LOW
-
-## UI/UX Anti-Pattern Checks
-
-Apply **only** when `.tsx`, `.jsx`, `.svelte`, `.vue`, or `.html` files are in the diff. Skip for backend-only changes.
-
-These are the **"AI UI signature"** — patterns that make AI-generated frontends visually identifiable as non-human-designed. Flag each as MEDIUM severity.
-
-**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Purple/indigo default accent with no domain justification:**
-```tsx
-// BAD: LLM default color bias — signals "AI-generated" to experienced designers
-className="bg-indigo-600 text-white"  // every button/CTA is indigo
-// GOOD: domain-appropriate — trading → neutral dark, healthcare → trust blue,
-//        e-commerce → conversion-optimized warm. Purple is only appropriate for
-//        AI-native tools and creative platforms.
-```
-
-**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Card-grid monotony (every section is 3-col cards, zero layout variation):**
-```tsx
-// BAD: every section uses the same grid pattern
-<div className="grid grid-cols-3 gap-6">  // features
-<div className="grid grid-cols-3 gap-6">  // testimonials
-<div className="grid grid-cols-3 gap-6">  // pricing
-// GOOD: mix layouts — split sections, bento grids, full-bleed hero, list+detail
-```
-
-**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Centeritis (everything centered, no directional flow):**
-```tsx
-// BAD: no visual tension, no reading direction
-<div className="text-center flex flex-col items-center">  // hero
-<div className="text-center">  // every feature section
-// GOOD: left-align body copy, use centering intentionally for hero/CTAs only
-```
-
-**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Numeric/financial values in non-monospace font:**
-```tsx
-// BAD: prices, stats, metrics in Inter/Roboto
-<span className="text-2xl font-bold">${price}</span>
-// GOOD: monospace for all numbers that need alignment
-<span className="font-mono text-2xl font-bold">${price}</span>
-```
-
-**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Missing UI states (only happy path rendered):**
-```tsx
-// BAD: data rendering without empty/error/loading states
-{data.map(item => <Card key={item.id} {...item} />)}
-// GOOD: all 4 states covered
-{isLoading && <CardSkeleton />}
-{error && <ErrorState message={error.message} />}
-{!data.length && <EmptyState />}
-{data.map(item => <Card key={item.id} {...item} />)}
-```
-
-**Accessibility — flag as HIGH (these are WCAG 2.2 failures):**
-```tsx
-// BAD: icon button with no accessible name
-<button onClick={close}><XIcon /></button>
-// GOOD
-<button onClick={close} aria-label="Close dialog"><XIcon aria-hidden="true" /></button>
-
-// BAD: placeholder as label
-<input placeholder="Email address" type="email" />
-// GOOD
-<label htmlFor="email">Email address</label>
-<input id="email" type="email" />
-
-// BAD: removes focus ring without replacement
-className="focus:outline-none"
-// GOOD: must have focus-visible replacement
-className="focus:outline-none focus-visible:ring-2 focus-visible:ring-blue-500"
-
-// BAD: color as sole information conveyor
-<span className="text-red-500">{errorMessage}</span>
-// GOOD: icon + color + text
-<span className="text-red-500 flex gap-1"><ErrorIcon aria-hidden />Error: {errorMessage}</span>
-```
-
-**WCAG 2.2 New Rules — flag as MEDIUM:**
-- `position: sticky` or `position: fixed` header/footer without `scroll-padding-top` → Focus Not Obscured (2.4.11)
-- Interactive elements with `width < 24px` or `height < 24px` without 8px spacing → Target Size (2.5.8)
-- Multi-step form re-asking for previously entered data → Redundant Entry (3.3.7)
-
-**Platform-Specific — flag as MEDIUM when platform is detectable:**
-- iOS target: solid-background cards (iOS 26 Liquid Glass deprecates this visual language) — should use translucent/blur surfaces
-- Android target: hardcoded hex colors instead of `MaterialTheme.colorScheme` tokens → not adaptive to dynamic color
-
-## Weighted Composite Scoring
-
-When a review is part of a recurring quality-gate cycle (e.g., sprint review, pre-release gate), produce a **composite quality score** alongside the findings list. This makes review output numeric and comparable across runs.
-
-### Formula
-
-```
-Quality Score = (Correctness × 0.35) + (Security × 0.30) + (Test Coverage × 0.20) + (Conventions × 0.15)
-```
-
-Each dimension is scored 0–100 based on findings count and severity:
-- 0 CRITICAL/HIGH findings → 100 for that dimension
-- 1 CRITICAL → dimension capped at 40
-- 1 HIGH → dimension capped at 70
-- Each additional MEDIUM → subtract 5 (floor: 50)
-
-### Grade Thresholds
-
-| Score | Grade | Verdict |
-|-------|-------|---------|
-| 90–100 | Excellent | APPROVE |
-| 75–89 | Good | APPROVE with notes |
-| 60–74 | Fair | REQUEST CHANGES (MEDIUM issues) |
-| 40–59 | Poor | REQUEST CHANGES (HIGH issues present) |
-| 0–39 | Critical | REQUEST CHANGES (CRITICAL present) |
-
-**When to include**: Only when `mode: "scored"` is passed by the caller, or when invoked by `audit`. Default review output uses the standard severity-ranked report without the score.
-
-> Source: zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude (2.7k★) — weighted composite formula, 5-tier grade thresholds.
-
-## Severity Levels
-
-```
-CRITICAL  — security vulnerability, data loss risk, crash bug
-HIGH      — logic error, missing validation, broken edge case
-MEDIUM    — code smell, performance issue, missing error handling
-LOW       — style inconsistency, naming suggestion, minor refactor opportunity
-```
-
-## Output Format
-
-```
-## Code Review Report
-- **Files Reviewed**: [count]
-- **Findings**: [count by severity]
-- **Review Commit**: [git hash at time of review]
-- **Overall**: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION
-
-### Spec Compliance
-- [PASS/FAIL]: [acceptance criteria coverage]
-
-### CRITICAL
-- `path/to/file.ts:42` — [description of critical issue]
-
-### HIGH
-- `path/to/file.ts:85` — [description of high-severity issue]
-
-### MEDIUM
-- `path/to/file.ts:120` — [description of medium issue]
-
-### Blast Radius
-- [High-impact symbols with caller counts]
-
-### Positive Notes
-- [good patterns observed]
-
-### Verdict
-[Summary and recommendation]
-```
-
-### Review Staleness Detection
-
-Track the git commit hash at review time. If code changes after review → review is STALE.
-
-```
-Review commit: abc123 → Code changed to def456 → Review is STALE, re-review required
-```
-
-When `cook` or `ship` checks review status: compare review commit hash with current HEAD. If different → WARN: "Review is stale — code changed since last review."
-
-> Source: garrytan/gstack v0.9.4 (50.9k★) — commit hash staleness tracking for reviews.
-
-## Constraints
-
-1. MUST read the full diff — not just the files the user pointed at
-2. MUST reference specific file:line for every finding
-3. MUST NOT rubber-stamp with generic praise ("well-structured", "clean code") without evidence
-4. MUST check: correctness, security, performance, conventions, test coverage
-5. MUST categorize findings: CRITICAL (blocks commit) / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
-6. MUST escalate to sentinel if auth/crypto/secrets code is touched
-7. MUST flag untested code paths and recommend tests via rune:test
-
-## Returns
-
-| Artifact | Format | Location |
-|----------|--------|----------|
-| Code review report | Markdown | inline (chat output) |
-| Severity-ranked findings | Markdown table | inline |
-| Spec compliance verdict | Markdown | inline |
-| Composite quality score | Markdown table | inline (when `mode: "scored"`) |
-| Blast radius assessment | Markdown table | inline |
-
-## Sharp Edges
-
-| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
-|---|---|---|
-| Finding flood — 20+ findings overwhelm developer | MEDIUM | Confidence filter: only >80% confidence, consolidate similar issues per file |
-| "LGTM" without file:line evidence | HIGH | HARD-GATE blocks this — cite at least one specific item per changed file |
-| Expanding review scope beyond the diff | MEDIUM | Limit to `git diff` scope — do not creep into adjacent unchanged files |
-| Security finding without sentinel escalation | HIGH | Any auth/crypto/payment code touched → MUST call rune:sentinel |
-| Skipping UI anti-pattern checks for frontend changes | MEDIUM | Any .tsx/.jsx/.svelte/.vue in diff → MUST run UI/UX Anti-Pattern Checks section |
-| Skipping spec compliance check (Step 5.5 Stage 1) | HIGH | Code quality without spec check ships clean code that does the wrong thing — always load the plan/ticket before reviewing quality |
-| Treating purple/indigo accent as "just a color choice" | MEDIUM | It is a documented AI-generated UI signature — always flag for domain justification |
-| Suggesting "add X" without checking if X is used | MEDIUM | YAGNI pushback: grep codebase for the suggested feature → if uncalled anywhere → respond "Not called anywhere. Remove? (YAGNI)". Valid pushback, not laziness |
-| Adding abstractions "for future flexibility" | MEDIUM | Three similar lines > premature abstraction. Only abstract when there are 3+ concrete callers today |
-| Missing cross-phase integration check at phase boundary | MEDIUM | When reviewing a phase completion: check orphaned exports, uncalled routes, auth gaps, E2E flow continuity. Delegate to completion-gate Step 4.5 |
-
-## Done When
-
-- All changed files in the diff read and analyzed
-- Every finding references specific file:line with severity label
-- Security-critical code escalated to sentinel (or confirmed not present)
-- Test coverage gaps identified and documented
-- UI anti-pattern checks ran for any frontend files in diff (or confirmed not applicable)
-- Structured report emitted with APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION verdict
-
-## Cost Profile
-
-~3000-6000 tokens input, ~1000-2000 tokens output. Sonnet default, opus for security-critical reviews. Runs once per implementation cycle.
+---
+name: review
+description: Code quality review — patterns, security, performance, correctness. Finds bugs, suggests improvements, triggers fix for issues found. Escalates to opus for security-critical code.
+metadata:
+  author: runedev
+  version: "0.5.0"
+  layer: L2
+  model: sonnet
+  group: development
+  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep"
+---
+
+# review
+
+## Purpose
+
+Code quality analysis. Review finds bugs, bad patterns, security issues, and untested code. It does NOT fix anything — it reports findings and delegates: bugs go to rune:fix, untested code goes to rune:test, security-critical code goes to rune:sentinel.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+A review that says "LGTM" or "code looks good" without specific file:line references is NOT a review.
+Every review MUST cite at least one specific concern, suggestion, or explicit approval per file changed.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Triggers
+
+- Called by `cook` Phase 5 REVIEW — after implementation complete
+- Called by `fix` for self-review on complex fixes
+- `/rune review` — manual code review
+- Auto-trigger: when PR is created or significant code changes committed
+
+## Calls (outbound)
+
+- `scout` (L2): find related code for fuller context during review
+- `test` (L2): when untested edge cases found — write tests for them
+- `fix` (L2): when bugs found during review — trigger fix
+- `sentinel` (L2): when security-critical code detected (auth, input, crypto)
+- `docs-seeker` (L3): verify API usage is current and correct
+- `hallucination-guard` (L3): verify imports and API calls in reviewed code
+- `design` (L2): when UI anti-patterns suggest missing design system — recommend design skill invocation
+- `perf` (L2): when performance patterns detected in frontend diff
+- `review-intake` (L2): structured intake for complex multi-file reviews
+- `sast` (L3): static analysis security scan on reviewed code
+- L4 extension packs: domain-specific review patterns when context matches (e.g., @rune/ui for frontend, @rune/security for auth code)
+- `neural-memory` | After review complete | Capture code quality insight
+
+## Called By (inbound)
+
+- `cook` (L1): Phase 5 REVIEW — post-implementation quality check
+- `fix` (L2): complex fix requests self-review
+- User: `/rune review` direct invocation
+- `surgeon` (L2): review refactored code quality
+- `rescue` (L1): review refactored code quality
+
+## Cross-Hub Connections
+
+- `review` → `test` — untested edge case found → test writes it
+- `review` → `fix` — bug found during review → fix applies correction
+- `review` → `scout` — needs more context → scout finds related code
+- `review` ← `fix` — complex fix requests self-review
+- `review` → `sentinel` — security-critical code → sentinel deep scan
+
+## Execution
+
+### Step 1: Scope
+
+Determine what to review.
+
+- If triggered by a commit or PR: use `Bash` with `git diff main...HEAD` or `git diff HEAD~1` to see exactly what changed
+- If triggered by a specific file or feature: use `Read` on each named file
+- If context is unclear: use `rune:scout` to identify all files touched by the change
+- List every file in scope before proceeding — do not review files outside the stated scope
+
+### Step 1.5: Blast Radius Assessment
+
+For each modified function/class, estimate its blast radius before reviewing.
+
+```
+Use Grep to count direct callers/importers of each modified symbol:
+  blast_radius = count(files importing or calling this symbol)
+```
+
+| Blast Radius | Risk | Review Depth |
+|-------------|------|-------------|
+| 1-5 callers | Low | Standard review |
+| 6-20 callers | Medium | Check all callers for compatibility |
+| 21-50 callers | High | Thorough review + regression test check |
+| 50+ callers | Critical | MUST escalate to adversarial analysis (rune:adversary) even in quick triage |
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Modifying a symbol with 50+ callers + HIGH severity change (logic, types, behavior) → adversarial analysis REQUIRED. Quick review is NOT sufficient for high-blast-radius changes.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+### Step 2: Logic Check (Production-Critical Focus)
+
+Read each changed file. Prioritize bugs that **pass CI but break production** — these are the highest-value findings because linters and type checkers already catch the rest.
+
+- Use `Read` on every file in scope
+- **Race conditions**: async operations without proper sequencing, shared mutable state, missing locks
+- **State corruption**: mutations that affect other consumers, cache invalidation gaps, stale closures
+- **Silent failures**: caught errors that swallow context, empty catch blocks, promises without rejection handling
+- **Data loss paths**: write operations without confirmation, delete without soft-delete, truncation without backup
+- **Edge cases**: empty input, null/undefined, zero, negative numbers, empty arrays, Unicode, timezone boundaries
+- Check for: logic errors, off-by-one errors, incorrect conditionals, broken async/await patterns
+- Flag each finding with file path, line number, and severity
+
+**Common patterns to flag:**
+
+```typescript
+// BAD — missing await causes race condition
+async function saveUser(data) {
+  db.users.create(data); // caller proceeds before save completes
+  return { success: true };
+}
+// GOOD
+async function saveUser(data) {
+  await db.users.create(data);
+  return { success: true };
+}
+```
+
+```typescript
+// BAD — null deref crash
+function getUsername(user) {
+  return user.profile.name.toUpperCase(); // crashes if profile or name is null
+}
+// GOOD — safe access
+function getUsername(user) {
+  return user?.profile?.name?.toUpperCase() ?? 'Anonymous';
+}
+```
+
+### Step 3: Pattern Check
+
+Check consistency with project conventions.
+
+- Compare naming against existing codebase patterns (use `Grep` to sample similar code)
+- Check file structure: is it in the right layer/directory per project conventions?
+- Check for mutations — all state changes should use immutable patterns
+- Check for hardcoded values that should be constants or config
+- Check TypeScript: no `any`, full type coverage, no non-null assertions without justification
+- Flag inconsistencies as MEDIUM or LOW depending on impact
+
+**Common patterns to flag:**
+
+```typescript
+// BAD — mutation
+function addItem(cart, item) {
+  cart.items.push(item); // mutates in place
+  return cart;
+}
+// GOOD — immutable
+function addItem(cart, item) {
+  return { ...cart, items: [...cart.items, item] };
+}
+```
+
+```typescript
+// BAD — any defeats TypeScript's purpose
+function process(data: any): any {
+  return data.items.map((i: any) => i.value);
+}
+// GOOD — typed
+function process(data: { items: Array<{ value: string }> }): string[] {
+  return data.items.map(i => i.value);
+}
+```
+
+### Step 4: Security Check
+
+Check for security-relevant issues.
+
+- Scan for: hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords in code or comments
+- Scan for: unvalidated user input passed to queries, file paths, or shell commands
+- Scan for: missing authentication checks on new routes or functions
+- Scan for: XSS vectors (unsanitized HTML output), CSRF exposure, open redirects
+- If any security-sensitive code found (auth logic, input handling, crypto, payment): call `rune:sentinel` for deep scan
+- Sentinel escalation is mandatory — do not skip it for auth or crypto code
+
+### Step 4.5: API Pit-of-Success Check
+
+For code that exposes APIs, shared utilities, or reusable interfaces, evaluate through 3 adversary personas:
+
+| Adversary | Mindset | What They Reveal |
+|-----------|---------|-----------------|
+| **The Scoundrel** | Malicious — controls config, crafts inputs, exploits edge cases | Security holes, privilege escalation, injection surfaces |
+| **The Lazy Developer** | Copy-pastes from docs, skips error handling, uses defaults | Unsafe defaults, missing validation, footgun APIs |
+| **The Confused Developer** | Misunderstands API semantics, passes wrong types, ignores return values | Ambiguous interfaces, poor naming, missing type safety |
+
+**Pit-of-Success principle**: Secure, correct usage should be the path of least resistance. If the API makes it EASIER to use it wrong than right → WARN.
+
+Check: Does the API have sensible defaults? Does misuse fail loudly (not silently)? Is the happy path obvious from the signature?
+
+**Skip if**: Code is internal-only (no external consumers), single-use utility, or test-only.
+
+### Step 5: Test Coverage
+
+Identify gaps in test coverage.
+
+- Use `Bash` to check if a test file exists for each changed file
+- Use `Glob` to find test files: `**/*.test.ts`, `**/*.spec.ts`, `**/__tests__/**`
+- Read the test file and verify: are the new functions covered? are edge cases tested?
+- If untested code found: call `rune:test` with specific instructions on what to test
+- Flag as HIGH if business logic is untested, MEDIUM if utility code is untested
+
+### Step 5.5: Two-Stage Review Gate
+
+Separate spec compliance from code quality. Most reviews conflate both — this gate forces the distinction.
+
+**Stage 1 — Spec Compliance (check FIRST)**
+
+Before evaluating code quality, verify the implementation matches what was asked:
+
+- Load the originating plan, task, ticket, or `requirements.md` if available
+- Does the implementation cover every acceptance criterion? Check each one explicitly
+- Is there **under-engineering** — requirements stated but not implemented?
+- Is there **over-engineering** — abstractions, generalization, or features beyond scope?
+- Does the file/function structure match what the plan specified?
+
+Flag spec deviations as HIGH — clean code that misses requirements ships broken products.
+
+```
+# Spec Compliance Checklist
+[ ] All acceptance criteria from plan/ticket covered
+[ ] No stated requirements missing from implementation
+[ ] No unrequested features added (scope creep)
+[ ] API surface matches what was specified (signatures, endpoints, return types)
+[ ] File structure matches plan (no renamed or relocated files without justification)
+```
+
+If spec violations found: document them separately from code quality findings in the report. Label as `SPEC-MISS` or `SPEC-CREEP`.
+
+**Stage 2 — Code Quality**
+
+Proceed to Step 6 only after Stage 1 passes. Code quality findings (bugs, patterns, security, coverage) are the existing Steps 2–5 above.
+
+The review report MUST show both stages: spec compliance verdict first, then code quality findings.
+
+### Step 6: Report
+
+Produce a structured severity-ranked report.
+
+**Before reporting, apply confidence filter:**
+- Only report findings with >80% confidence it is a real issue
+- Consolidate similar issues: "8 functions missing error handling in src/services/" — not 8 separate findings
+- Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate conventions found in `.eslintrc`, `CLAUDE.md`, or `CONTRIBUTING.md`
+- Adapt to project type: a `console.log` in a CLI tool is fine; in a production API handler it is not
+
+- Group findings by severity: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW
+- Include file path and line number for every finding
+- Include a Positive Notes section (good patterns observed)
+- Include a Verdict: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION
+
+After reporting:
+- If any CRITICAL findings: call `rune:fix` immediately with the finding details
+- If any HIGH findings: call `rune:fix` with the finding details
+- If untested code: call `rune:test` with specific coverage gaps identified
+- Call `neural-memory` (Capture Mode) to save any novel code quality patterns or recurring issues found.
+
+## Framework-Specific Checks
+
+Apply **only** if the framework is detected in the changed files. Skip if not relevant.
+
+**React / Next.js** (detect: `import React` or `.tsx` files)
+- `useEffect` with missing dependencies (stale closure) → flag HIGH
+- List items using index as key on reorderable lists: `key={i}` → flag MEDIUM
+- Props drilled through 3+ levels without Context or composition → flag MEDIUM
+- Client-side hooks (`useState`, `useEffect`) in Server Components (Next.js App Router) → flag HIGH
+
+**Node.js / Express** (detect: `import express` or `require('express')`)
+- Missing rate limiting on public endpoints → flag MEDIUM
+- `req.body` passed directly to DB without validation schema → flag HIGH
+- Synchronous operations blocking the event loop inside async handlers → flag HIGH
+
+**Python** (detect: `.py` files with `django`, `flask`, or `fastapi` imports)
+- `except:` bare catch without specific exception type → flag MEDIUM
+- Mutable default arguments: `def func(items=[])` → flag HIGH
+- Missing type hints on public functions (if project uses mypy/pyright) → flag LOW
+
+## UI/UX Anti-Pattern Checks
+
+Apply **only** when `.tsx`, `.jsx`, `.svelte`, `.vue`, or `.html` files are in the diff. Skip for backend-only changes.
+
+These are the **"AI UI signature"** — patterns that make AI-generated frontends visually identifiable as non-human-designed. Flag each as MEDIUM severity.
+
+**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Purple/indigo default accent with no domain justification:**
+```tsx
+// BAD: LLM default color bias — signals "AI-generated" to experienced designers
+className="bg-indigo-600 text-white"  // every button/CTA is indigo
+// GOOD: domain-appropriate — trading → neutral dark, healthcare → trust blue,
+//        e-commerce → conversion-optimized warm. Purple is only appropriate for
+//        AI-native tools and creative platforms.
+```
+
+**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Card-grid monotony (every section is 3-col cards, zero layout variation):**
+```tsx
+// BAD: every section uses the same grid pattern
+<div className="grid grid-cols-3 gap-6">  // features
+<div className="grid grid-cols-3 gap-6">  // testimonials
+<div className="grid grid-cols-3 gap-6">  // pricing
+// GOOD: mix layouts — split sections, bento grids, full-bleed hero, list+detail
+```
+
+**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Centeritis (everything centered, no directional flow):**
+```tsx
+// BAD: no visual tension, no reading direction
+<div className="text-center flex flex-col items-center">  // hero
+<div className="text-center">  // every feature section
+// GOOD: left-align body copy, use centering intentionally for hero/CTAs only
+```
+
+**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Numeric/financial values in non-monospace font:**
+```tsx
+// BAD: prices, stats, metrics in Inter/Roboto
+<span className="text-2xl font-bold">${price}</span>
+// GOOD: monospace for all numbers that need alignment
+<span className="font-mono text-2xl font-bold">${price}</span>
+```
+
+**AI_ANTIPATTERN — Missing UI states (only happy path rendered):**
+```tsx
+// BAD: data rendering without empty/error/loading states
+{data.map(item => <Card key={item.id} {...item} />)}
+// GOOD: all 4 states covered
+{isLoading && <CardSkeleton />}
+{error && <ErrorState message={error.message} />}
+{!data.length && <EmptyState />}
+{data.map(item => <Card key={item.id} {...item} />)}
+```
+
+**Accessibility — flag as HIGH (these are WCAG 2.2 failures):**
+```tsx
+// BAD: icon button with no accessible name
+<button onClick={close}><XIcon /></button>
+// GOOD
+<button onClick={close} aria-label="Close dialog"><XIcon aria-hidden="true" /></button>
+
+// BAD: placeholder as label
+<input placeholder="Email address" type="email" />
+// GOOD
+<label htmlFor="email">Email address</label>
+<input id="email" type="email" />
+
+// BAD: removes focus ring without replacement
+className="focus:outline-none"
+// GOOD: must have focus-visible replacement
+className="focus:outline-none focus-visible:ring-2 focus-visible:ring-blue-500"
+
+// BAD: color as sole information conveyor
+<span className="text-red-500">{errorMessage}</span>
+// GOOD: icon + color + text
+<span className="text-red-500 flex gap-1"><ErrorIcon aria-hidden />Error: {errorMessage}</span>
+```
+
+**WCAG 2.2 New Rules — flag as MEDIUM:**
+- `position: sticky` or `position: fixed` header/footer without `scroll-padding-top` → Focus Not Obscured (2.4.11)
+- Interactive elements with `width < 24px` or `height < 24px` without 8px spacing → Target Size (2.5.8)
+- Multi-step form re-asking for previously entered data → Redundant Entry (3.3.7)
+
+**Platform-Specific — flag as MEDIUM when platform is detectable:**
+- iOS target: solid-background cards (iOS 26 Liquid Glass deprecates this visual language) — should use translucent/blur surfaces
+- Android target: hardcoded hex colors instead of `MaterialTheme.colorScheme` tokens → not adaptive to dynamic color
+
+## Weighted Composite Scoring
+
+When a review is part of a recurring quality-gate cycle (e.g., sprint review, pre-release gate), produce a **composite quality score** alongside the findings list. This makes review output numeric and comparable across runs.
+
+### Formula
+
+```
+Quality Score = (Correctness × 0.35) + (Security × 0.30) + (Test Coverage × 0.20) + (Conventions × 0.15)
+```
+
+Each dimension is scored 0–100 based on findings count and severity:
+- 0 CRITICAL/HIGH findings → 100 for that dimension
+- 1 CRITICAL → dimension capped at 40
+- 1 HIGH → dimension capped at 70
+- Each additional MEDIUM → subtract 5 (floor: 50)
+
+### Grade Thresholds
+
+| Score | Grade | Verdict |
+|-------|-------|---------|
+| 90–100 | Excellent | APPROVE |
+| 75–89 | Good | APPROVE with notes |
+| 60–74 | Fair | REQUEST CHANGES (MEDIUM issues) |
+| 40–59 | Poor | REQUEST CHANGES (HIGH issues present) |
+| 0–39 | Critical | REQUEST CHANGES (CRITICAL present) |
+
+**When to include**: Only when `mode: "scored"` is passed by the caller, or when invoked by `audit`. Default review output uses the standard severity-ranked report without the score.
+
+
+## Severity Levels
+
+```
+CRITICAL  — security vulnerability, data loss risk, crash bug
+HIGH      — logic error, missing validation, broken edge case
+MEDIUM    — code smell, performance issue, missing error handling
+LOW       — style inconsistency, naming suggestion, minor refactor opportunity
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Code Review Report
+- **Files Reviewed**: [count]
+- **Findings**: [count by severity]
+- **Review Commit**: [git hash at time of review]
+- **Overall**: APPROVE | REQUEST CHANGES | NEEDS DISCUSSION
+
+### Spec Compliance
+- [PASS/FAIL]: [acceptance criteria coverage]
+
+### CRITICAL
+- `path/to/file.ts:42` — [description of critical issue]
+
+### HIGH
+- `path/to/file.ts:85` — [description of high-severity issue]
+
+### MEDIUM
+- `path/to/file.ts:120` — [description of medium issue]
+
+### Blast Radius
+- [High-impact symbols with caller counts]
+
+### Positive Notes
+- [good patterns observed]
+
+### Verdict
+[Summary and recommendation]
+```
+
+### Review Staleness Detection
+
+Track the git commit hash at review time. If code changes after review → review is STALE.
+
+```
+Review commit: abc123 → Code changed to def456 → Review is STALE, re-review required
+```
+
+When `cook` or `ship` checks review status: compare review commit hash with current HEAD. If different → WARN: "Review is stale — code changed since last review."
+
+
+## Constraints
+
+1. MUST read the full diff — not just the files the user pointed at
+2. MUST reference specific file:line for every finding
+3. MUST NOT rubber-stamp with generic praise ("well-structured", "clean code") without evidence
+4. MUST check: correctness, security, performance, conventions, test coverage
+5. MUST categorize findings: CRITICAL (blocks commit) / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
+6. MUST escalate to sentinel if auth/crypto/secrets code is touched
+7. MUST flag untested code paths and recommend tests via rune:test
+
+## Returns
+
+| Artifact | Format | Location |
+|----------|--------|----------|
+| Code review report | Markdown | inline (chat output) |
+| Severity-ranked findings | Markdown table | inline |
+| Spec compliance verdict | Markdown | inline |
+| Composite quality score | Markdown table | inline (when `mode: "scored"`) |
+| Blast radius assessment | Markdown table | inline |
+
+## Sharp Edges
+
+| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
+|---|---|---|
+| Finding flood — 20+ findings overwhelm developer | MEDIUM | Confidence filter: only >80% confidence, consolidate similar issues per file |
+| "LGTM" without file:line evidence | HIGH | HARD-GATE blocks this — cite at least one specific item per changed file |
+| Expanding review scope beyond the diff | MEDIUM | Limit to `git diff` scope — do not creep into adjacent unchanged files |
+| Security finding without sentinel escalation | HIGH | Any auth/crypto/payment code touched → MUST call rune:sentinel |
+| Skipping UI anti-pattern checks for frontend changes | MEDIUM | Any .tsx/.jsx/.svelte/.vue in diff → MUST run UI/UX Anti-Pattern Checks section |
+| Skipping spec compliance check (Step 5.5 Stage 1) | HIGH | Code quality without spec check ships clean code that does the wrong thing — always load the plan/ticket before reviewing quality |
+| Treating purple/indigo accent as "just a color choice" | MEDIUM | It is a documented AI-generated UI signature — always flag for domain justification |
+| Suggesting "add X" without checking if X is used | MEDIUM | YAGNI pushback: grep codebase for the suggested feature → if uncalled anywhere → respond "Not called anywhere. Remove? (YAGNI)". Valid pushback, not laziness |
+| Adding abstractions "for future flexibility" | MEDIUM | Three similar lines > premature abstraction. Only abstract when there are 3+ concrete callers today |
+| Missing cross-phase integration check at phase boundary | MEDIUM | When reviewing a phase completion: check orphaned exports, uncalled routes, auth gaps, E2E flow continuity. Delegate to completion-gate Step 4.5 |
+
+## Done When
+
+- All changed files in the diff read and analyzed
+- Every finding references specific file:line with severity label
+- Security-critical code escalated to sentinel (or confirmed not present)
+- Test coverage gaps identified and documented
+- UI anti-pattern checks ran for any frontend files in diff (or confirmed not applicable)
+- Structured report emitted with APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION verdict
+
+## Cost Profile
+
+~3000-6000 tokens input, ~1000-2000 tokens output. Sonnet default, opus for security-critical reviews. Runs once per implementation cycle.