Guidelines Review

1. Look for PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md in the repo root.
2. If not found, check docs/PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md and .github/PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md.
3. If still not found, tell the user:

   No PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md found. Run /guidelines-init first to set up your project guidelines, or point me to your guidelines file. Then stop.

4. Detect mode by reading the first 10 lines of the file:
   • If <!-- mode: simple --> is found → simple mode.
   • If <!-- mode: full --> is found → full mode.
   • If no mode marker is found: check the entire file for any <!-- severity: ... --> tags. If found → full mode. If not found → simple mode.
5. Branch to the appropriate review workflow below.

Step 2 — Determine scope (shared across both modes)

Based on $ARGUMENTS, collect the files to review.

For --changed, --staged, and --pr, use Bash to run the appropriate git command. Normalize all file paths to forward slashes.

For full-project or directory scopes, use Glob to collect source files.

Always exclude: node_modules, .git, dist, build, vendor, __pycache__, .next, coverage, *.min.*, *.lock, *.map, generated code, binary files, lockfiles, and images.

Simple Mode Review

For guidelines files with <!-- mode: simple --> or no severity tags.

Parse rules

Read the ## Rules section. Each bullet is a rule. No severity parsing needed. Every rule has equal weight — a rule is a rule.

Review

Read each file in scope and check it against the flat rule list.

• Do NOT apply per-category heuristics (no grep patterns for security, N+1, etc.).
• Do NOT assign severity levels. Every finding is simply a rule that was broken.
• Just read the code and the rules, and use judgment.
• For 50 files or fewer, review inline.
• For 51+ files, delegate to the reviewer subagent with simple-mode input (rules list + file batch). Split into batches of ~20 files.

Report

Produce a clean, direct report:

# Guidelines Review

**Scope:** [what was reviewed]
**Files scanned:** [count]

## Issues Found

### [Rule text]
- `src/api/handler.ts:42` — [what is wrong] — [how to fix]
- `src/api/router.ts:18` — [what is wrong] — [how to fix]

### [Rule text]
- `src/utils/db.ts:7` — [what is wrong] — [how to fix]

## Clean
[List of rules with no violations, or "All other rules passed."]

No summary table. No severity grouping. No pass/warn/fail columns. Just issues grouped by rule, with file:line and a fix for each.

If no issues are found, say so clearly:

# Guidelines Review

**Scope:** [what was reviewed]
**Files scanned:** [count]

All files pass all rules.

Next steps

After presenting the report, offer:

1. Fix issues: "Want me to fix these automatically?"
2. Add rules: "Want to add any new rules based on what I found?"
3. Save report: "Want me to save this report to docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD.md?"

Full Mode Review

For guidelines files with <!-- mode: full --> or <!-- severity: ... --> tags.

Parse guidelines

Parse each section heading and look for a severity comment on the following line. The format is <!-- severity: (error|warning|info) -->.

• Normalize whitespace when parsing — accept both <!-- severity:error --> and <!-- severity: error -->.
• If a section has no severity comment, default to warning.
• Build a severity map: { "Code Style > Naming": "warning", "Security": "error", ... }

Review

For scopes of 50 files or fewer: Review files directly (inline).

For scopes of 51+ files: Delegate to the reviewer subagent for parallel processing:

• Split files into batches of ~20 files each.
• Pass each batch: the full guidelines text, the parsed severity map, the list of file paths, and which guideline categories to focus on.
• Collect JSON results from all subagent instances.
• Merge findings into a single list.

Per-category review heuristics:

When reviewing (inline or via subagent), check these patterns per category:

Code Style (Naming, Formatting, Imports)

• Grep for naming pattern violations against the documented convention
• Check a sample of files for import ordering consistency
• If a formatter (Prettier, Black, gofmt) is configured AND running in CI, mark formatting as "Enforced by tooling" and skip detailed checks

Architecture

• Check directory structure against documented patterns
• Look for imports that cross documented module boundaries
• Check for circular dependencies if guidelines mention them

Error Handling

• Grep for bare catch {}, catch (e) {} without handling, except: pass
• Look for console.log / print used instead of proper logging framework
• Check for unhandled promises (missing await or .catch())

Testing

• Check test file existence for source files that guidelines say must be tested
• Verify test naming conventions match guidelines
• Look for test anti-patterns: no assertions, commented-out tests, empty test bodies

Git Workflow

• Check recent commit messages against documented format
• Check current branch name against naming convention

Documentation

• Check for missing docstrings/JSDoc on public functions/classes if guidelines require them
• Verify README exists and has required sections

Security

• Grep for hardcoded secret patterns (API keys, passwords, tokens, sk-, ghp_, etc.)
• Check for .env files that should be gitignored
• Look for known insecure patterns (eval(), innerHTML, SQL string concatenation, Function(), child_process.exec with string interpolation)

Performance

• Look for N+1 query patterns (queries inside loops)
• Check for missing pagination in list endpoints
• Look for synchronous I/O in async contexts

Report

Produce a structured report:

# Guidelines Review Report

**Scope:** [what was reviewed]
**Date:** [today]
**Guidelines version:** [date from PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md header]
**Files scanned:** [count]

## Summary

| Category | Pass | Warn | Fail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Style | 12 | 3 | 1 |
| Architecture | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Violations (must fix)

### [Category]: [Specific guideline]
**Severity:** error
**Files:** `src/api/handler.ts:42`, `src/api/router.ts:18`
**Guideline:** [quote the specific rule from PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md]
**Issue:** [what's wrong]
**Fix:** [concrete suggestion with corrected code]

---

## Warnings (should fix)

[same format as violations]

---

## Suggestions (nice to have)

[same format, for severity: info findings]

---

## Compliant

[brief list of categories and rules that passed cleanly]

## Recommendations

[patterns noticed that aren't covered by current guidelines — suggest additions
to PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md]

Next steps

After presenting the report, offer:

1. Fix violations: "Want me to fix the violations automatically?"
2. Update guidelines: "I noticed some patterns not covered by your guidelines. Want me to add them to PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md?"
3. Save report: "Want me to save this report to docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD.md?"

Review Principles (both modes)

• Be specific: Always cite file:line, quote the rule, and suggest a fix. Never say "some files have issues" without naming them.
• No invented rules: Every finding must reference a specific rule or section of PROJECT_GUIDELINES.md. Do not apply personal preferences or external standards that aren't in the guidelines.
• Be proportional: For a single-file review, be thorough. For a full-project review, focus on patterns and representative examples rather than listing every instance of a repeated violation. Group repeated violations with a count.
• Acknowledge compliance: Don't only flag problems. Call out areas where the code follows guidelines cleanly.
• Respect severity (full mode only): Don't escalate info items to sound like errors. Don't downplay error items. The guideline author chose the severity deliberately.
• Skip tooling-enforced rules (full mode only): If a linter or formatter already enforces a rule and runs in CI, mark it as "Enforced by tooling" and move on. Only mark as enforced if the tool clearly covers the entire category.