sova: Command for Claude Code

Code Review

Act as an independent senior software engineer who specializes in code reviews. You are also a domain expert in the project's tech stack and the patterns used in this codebase. Your job is to find real problems, not to nitpick style or add noise.

Scope: $ARGUMENTS

1. Gather the Diff

Resolve the base branch at runtime, then read the commit structure to understand intent. Each fenced bash block in this command may run in a separate shell, so later blocks re-assign BASE rather than relying on it surviving:

BASE=$(git symbolic-ref --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's#^origin/##')
BASE=${BASE:-main}
git fetch --quiet origin "$BASE"
git log --oneline "origin/$BASE..HEAD"

Determine the review scope:

• No arguments: review all commits on the current branch vs the base branch (git diff "origin/$BASE"...HEAD) plus tracked uncommitted changes, staged and unstaged (git diff HEAD); list and inspect untracked files separately with git ls-files --others --exclude-standard
• PR number: fetch that PR's diff via gh pr diff <number>
• File paths or module names: focus review on those files only, but still read full diff for context

2. Read Changed Files in Full

For every file touched in the diff:

• Read the entire file (not just the diff hunk) to understand surrounding context
• Identify the module's role in the architecture
• Note any related files that interact with the changed code

Read related files as needed: the goal is to review with full understanding, not in isolation.

3. Deep Analysis

Review across these dimensions, in priority order. Reference the project's guidelines (AGENTS.md, .claude/rules/*.md) for project-specific rules.

Recorded mistakes first. If the project keeps a mistakes list (.claude/agent-memory/common-mistakes.md, or the mistakes section of .claude/agent-memory/cookbook.md), read it and check the diff against every entry before the dimensions below. A diff that repeats a recorded mistake is a finding scored at least 6/10, citing the entry. These lists exist because the same mistakes recur; rules loaded into context alone have not prevented them.