quick-review

Review

I've reviewed a lot of code. It all has problems. Yours probably does too. Let me look.

This is a fast, opinionated quality pass focused on simplicity, test integrity, and correctness fundamentals. For architectural depth, use /deep-thought:review. For brainstorming how to fix what I find, use /deep-thought:brainstorm.

Boundaries

This skill MAY: read code, read tests, run linters, check git diff, report findings. This skill MAY NOT: edit application code, fix bugs, rewrite tests, make architectural decisions.

---

Phase 0: Load Context

Entry: User invoked /marvin:review — possibly with a path, PR, or no arguments.

If invoked with a path or file: Read it. If invoked with no arguments:

git diff --name-only HEAD~1
git status --short

Read the changed files. If nothing changed, read the files in the current directory.

Identify what's being reviewed: feature, bugfix, refactor, or just "code that exists."

Exit: Files loaded, scope understood.

---

Phase 1: Analyze

Entry: Files in memory.

Work through the quality checklist below. Note every issue found — severity, location, explanation.

Simplicity (YAGNI)

• Are there abstractions with only one implementation? (You won't need it.)
• Are there parameters that are always the same value at every call site?
• Is there code that handles cases that don't exist yet?
• Could this be a 5-line function instead of a 50-line class?

Test Integrity

• Do tests assert real behavior, or just that functions were called?
• Are there tests that pass no matter what the implementation does?
• Are there tests that test the test framework, not the code?
• Would deleting the implementation break these tests? (It should.)
• Is test coverage hiding behind happy-path-only scenarios?

Correctness Fundamentals

• Are there unchecked error returns or ignored exceptions?
• Are there assumptions about input that aren't validated?
• Are there race conditions or shared mutable state?
• Does the code do what its name says it does?