Skill: anderskev/review-elixir (version 1.0.1)

--- description: Comprehensive Elixir/Phoenix code review with optional parallel agents name: review-elixir disable-model-invocation: true --- # Elixir Code Review ## Arguments - `--parallel`: Spawn specialized subagents per technology area - Path: Target directory (default: current working directory) ## Hard gates Complete in order before writing **Issues** in the output (empty scope is allowed; fabricated findings are not). 1. **Scope gate:** You have an explicit list of `.ex`/`.exs`/`.heex` paths under review (from Step 1 or user path). **Pass:** List printed or "No Elixir files in scope" — then stop with no Issues. 2. **Linter gate (style):** Step 2 commands ran for this Mix project; skipped tools are noted in one line (e.g. no `.credo.exs`). **Pass:** You do not report a style issue that already passes the project's formatter/linter for that line. 3. **Protocol gate:** `beagle-elixir:review-verification-protocol` is loaded before Step 6. **Pass:** At least one reported finding was checked against that checklist (state which item in the Review Summary or first Critical/Major note). 4. **Evidence gate (Critical/Major):** For each Critical or Major item, you re-read the file at `FILE:LINE` (full surrounding context, not only the diff hunk). **Pass:** The Issue description matches observable code at that location. ## Step 1: Identify Changed Files ```bash git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.ex$|\.exs$|\.heex$' ``` ## Step 2: Verify Linter/Formatter Status **CRITICAL**: Run project linters BEFORE flagging any style issues. ```bash # Check formatting mix format --check-formatted # Check Credo if present if [ -f ".credo.exs" ] || grep -q ":credo" mix.exs 2>/dev/null; then mix credo --strict fi # Check Dialyzer if configured if grep -q ":dialyxir" mix.exs 2>/dev/null; then mix dialyzer --format short fi ``` **Rules:** - If a linter passes for a specific rule, DO NOT flag that issue manually - Linter configuration is authoritative for style rules - Only flag issues that linters cannot detect (semantic issues, architectural problems) ## Step 3: Detect Technologies ```bash # Detect Phoenix grep -r "use Phoenix\|Phoenix.Router\|Phoenix.Controller" --include="*.ex" -l | head -3 # Detect LiveView grep -r "use Phoenix.LiveView\|Phoenix.LiveComponent\|~H" --include="*.ex" -l | head -3 # Detect Oban grep -r "use Oban.Worker\|Oban.insert" --include="*.ex" -l | head -3 # Check for test files git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '_test\.exs$' ``` ## Step 4: Load Verification Protocol Load `beagle-elixir:review-verification-protocol` skill and keep its checklist in mind throughout the review. ## Step 5: Load Skills Use the `Skill` tool to load each applicable skill. **Always load:** - `beagle-elixir:elixir-code-review` **Conditionally load based on detection:** | Condition | Skill | |-----------|-------| | Phoenix detected | `beagle-elixir:phoenix-code-review` | | LiveView detected | `beagle-elixir:liveview-code-review` | | Performance focus requested | `beagle-elixir:elixir-performance-review` | | Security focus requested | `beagle-elixir:elixir-security-review` | | Test files changed | `beagle-elixir:exunit-code-review` | ## Step 6: Review **Sequential (default):** 1. Load applicable skills 2. Review Elixir quality issues first 3. Review Phoenix patterns (if detected) 4. Review LiveView patterns (if detected) 5. Review detected technology areas 6. Consolidate findings **Parallel (--parallel flag):** 1. Detect all technologies upfront 2. Spawn one subagent per technology area with `Task` tool 3. Each agent loads its skill and reviews its domain 4. Wait for all agents 5. Consolidate findings ### Before Flagging Issues 1. **Check CLAUDE.md** for documented intentional patterns 2. **Check code comments** around the flagged area for "intentional", "optimization", or "NOTE:" 3. **Trace the code path** before claiming missing coverage 4. **Consider framework idioms** - what looks wrong generically may be correct for Elixir/Phoenix ## Step 7: Verify Findings Satisfy **Hard gates** items 2–4 before finalizing Issues. Before reporting any issue: 1. Re-read the actual code (not just diff context) 2. For "unused" claims - did you search all references? 3. For "missing" claims - did you check framework/parent handling? 4. For syntax issues - did you verify against current version docs? 5. Remove any findings that are style preferences, not actual issues ## Step 8: Review Convergence ### Single-Pass Completeness You MUST report ALL issues across ALL categories (style, logic, types, tests, security, performance) in a single review pass. Do not hold back issues for later rounds. Before submitting findings, ask yourself: - "If all my recommended fixes are applied, will I find NEW issues in the fixed code?" - "Am I requesting new code (tests, types, modules) that will itself need review?" If yes to either: include those anticipated downstream issues NOW, in this review, so the author can address everything at once. ### Scope Rules - Review ONLY the code in the diff and directly related existing code - Do NOT request new features, test infrastructure, or architectural changes that didn't exist before the diff - If test coverage is missing, flag it as ONE Minor issue ("Missing test coverage for X, Y, Z") — do NOT specify implementation details like mock libraries, behaviour extraction, or dependency injection patterns that would introduce substantial new code - Typespecs, documentation, and naming issues are Minor unless they affect public API contracts - Do NOT request adding new dependencies (e.g. Mox, testing libraries, linter plugins) ### Fix Complexity Budget Fixes to existing code should be flagged at their real severity regardless of size. However, requests for **net-new code that didn't exist before the diff** must be classified as Informational: - Adding a new dependency (e.g. Mox, a linter plugin) - Creating entirely new modules, files, or test suites - Extracting new behaviours, protocols, or abstractions These are improvement suggestions for the author to consider in future work, not review blockers. ### Iteration Policy If this is a re-review after fixes were applied: - ONLY verify that previously flagged issues were addressed correctly - Do NOT introduce new findings unrelated to the previous review's issues - Accept Minor/Nice-to-Have issues that weren't fixed — do not re-flag them - The goal of re-review is VERIFICATION, not discovery ## Output Format ```markdown ## Review Summary [1-2 sentence overview of findings] ## Issues ### Critical (Blocking) 1. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Issue: Description of what's wrong - Why: Why this matters (bug, type safety, security) - Fix: Specific recommended fix ### Major (Should Fix) 2. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Issue: ... - Why: ... - Fix: ... ### Minor (Nice to Have) N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE - Issue: ... - Why: ... - Fix: ... ### Informational (For Awareness) N. [FILE:LINE] SUGGESTION_TITLE - Suggestion: ... - Rationale: ... ## Good Patterns - [FILE:LINE] Pattern description (preserve this) ## Verdict Ready: Yes | No | With fixes 1-N (Critical/Major only; Minor items are acceptable) Rationale: [1-2 sentences] ``` ## Post-Fix Verification After fixes are applied, run the same checks as Step 2, then tests: ```bash mix format --check-formatted if [ -f ".credo.exs" ] || grep -q ":credo" mix.exs 2>/dev/null; then mix credo --strict fi if grep -q ":dialyxir" mix.exs 2>/dev/null; then mix dialyzer --format short fi mix test ``` All invoked checks must pass before approval. ## Rules - Load skills BEFORE reviewing (not after) - Number every issue sequentially (1, 2, 3...) - Include FILE:LINE for each issue - Separate Issue/Why/Fix clearly - Categorize by actual severity - Run verification after fixes - Report ALL issues in a single pass — do not hold back findings for later iterations - Re-reviews verify previous fixes ONLY — no new discovery - Requests for net-new code (new modules, dependencies, test suites) are Informational, not blocking - The Verdict ignores Minor and Informational items — only Critical and Major block approval


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: suspicious | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)