sova: Skill 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: the arguments provided when this skill is invoked

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.