Check: Review Before You Ship

Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.

Note: /review is a built-in Anthropic plugin command for PR review. Waza uses /check (or the alias code-review) instead. Do not re-trigger /review from within this skill.

Read the diff and find the problems. Review, audit, triage, and readiness requests are report-only; apply fixes only under explicit repair authorization still in force for the same task. Done means the requested review surface is covered and every verification claim comes from this session.

Outcome Contract

• Outcome: a review, release decision, or maintainer action grounded in the current diff, project context, and live evidence.
• Done when: findings, fixes, shipped state, or blockers are stated with the commands, artifacts, or remote state that prove them.
• Evidence: worktree status, diff, public project docs, manifests, CI, package contents, release or registry state, and current command output.
• Output: concise findings first, then verification and shipped-state summary when applicable. Multi-step or ship-action runs, and any request with several items or screenshots, close with a numbered completion ledger (done / not applicable / remaining), never a narrative that leaves the user asking "is everything done".
• Authorization: read-only intent may inspect the worktree and remote state but may not edit files, apply autofixes, commit, push, publish, comment, close, merge, or change branches. Each write or public action needs authorization from the current request, or from an authorization still in force for the same unfinished task: one that named this action and goal and has not been withdrawn. A later turn that asks for progress or says "continue" does not revoke it and does not have to repeat it. A new action, a wider scope, a changed goal, or a risk the original authorization did not cover needs its own. Approval of a draft is not approval to commit, push, publish, or delete.

Durable Context Preflight

See references/durable-context.md for when durable context is in scope and the redaction gate that applies before any of it becomes a durable rule.

For /check: the current diff, CI, and remote state override memory. Durable memory can explain user intent and preferred follow-through, but public project rules still come from README files, manifests, CI workflows, release docs, and explicit instructions in the current thread. Never cite private memory as a public project requirement.

Worktree Safety Preflight

Before any review, triage, ship, release, or PR operation, read the current worktree with:

git status --short --branch -uall

Treat modified, staged, and untracked files as user work. You may read them and include them in the review surface, but you must not move, hide, overwrite, clean, or discard them without explicit user approval in the current turn.

Do not run these commands as default review or PR setup: git switch, git checkout, git reset --hard, git clean, git stash -u, git stash --include-untracked, git stash -a, git stash --all, or gh pr checkout. If a branch change or cleanup is genuinely required, stop and ask for that exact operation.

Do not "protect" user work by moving untracked files, generated files, screenshots, or local scratch files into /tmp or another holding directory. Moving someone else's WIP out of the checkout is the same class of interference as stashing it. If a clean tree is required for generation, packaging, or verification, use a separate worktree from a known commit and copy only the artifact or patch you own back into the current checkout.

For PR inspection, prefer commands that do not switch the current working tree: gh pr view, gh pr diff, git fetch origin pull/<n>/head:refs/tmp/pr-<n>, and git merge-tree. Commit and push follow-through adds the HEAD re-read in references/mode-ship.md.

Mode Picker

Pick the mode that matches the user's intent, then read it in full before acting. Modes layer on top of the shared review surface (Scope, Hard Rules, Hard Stops, Autofix, Specialist Review, Verification, Sign-off) further down, which applies in every mode. Load a mode file only when its row matches; the default review path needs none of them.

User intent	Mode
"implement this plan", /think output handed off	Plan Execution
Diff or PR ready, "review", "看看代码", "合并前"	Default review (start at Get the Diff)
"look at issues", "review PRs", "triage", "批量处理"	load references/mode-triage.md
"is this worth a release", "值不值得发版"	load references/mode-ship.md (Release Worthiness Analysis)
"commit", "push", "publish", "release", "close issue", "发布表情"	load references/mode-ship.md (Ship / Release Follow-through)
"audit", "项目体检", "项目评分", "给项目打分", "深入分析项目代码", "scorecard", "linus review"	load references/mode-audit.md
Document, PDF, prose review	Delegate to /write Document Review Mode, keeping it in the same completion ledger; without /write, use the available prose capability and name the limitation

Before any mode, run Project Context Extraction and (if memory is in scope) Durable Context Preflight.

Project Context Extraction

This is Waza's public, standalone code-review capability. It should not depend on private machine paths or unpublished project instructions.

Before reviewing, extract project constraints from repository context:

1. Read the diff and identify changed languages, frameworks, manifests, generated outputs, release files, and CI workflows.
2. Inspect public project files only as needed: README, AGENTS/CLAUDE instructions when present, package manifests, lockfiles, build configs, test configs, workflow files, and release notes.
3. Compress the findings into review context: verification commands, protected or generated files, release artifacts, domain risks, and public reply rules.
4. Where project context and this skill state overlapping requirements that can both be met, satisfy the stricter one. Where the project states an explicit exception, the project wins and the report names it: stricter is not a licence to overrule a decision the project wrote down, and it does not reorder the host's own instruction precedence.
5. If project docs or CI name a verification command, prefer that over auto-detection, and read the workflow rather than the sentence describing it. A doc claiming CI enforces something is a claim; where no job runs it, trusting the sentence skips the manual check it replaced. A linter, a compiled helper, or a platform tier present locally but not in CI, or the reverse, means a green run on one side predicts nothing about the other.

For the context shape, see references/project-context.md.

For release readiness or publication, also fill the Release Gate 2.0 matrix from references/project-context.md. It covers review base, dirty/staged/untracked state, latest tag, origin sync, version fields, generated artifacts, package/archive contents, release assets, registry/appcast/CI, and public issue/PR state. Missing matrix evidence is a blocker for a "ready to release" claim. A commit/push-only task uses the source-delivery checks in references/mode-ship.md; unrelated release assets and registry state are out of scope.

Plan Execution Mode

Activate when the message starts with "Implement the following plan", "按计划实施", "按照计划", "整", "可以干", or "直接改" followed by a plan body, or links to a /think output. Skip the code review: name the plan, check git status --short --branch -uall for drift that makes it unsafe (name the conflict and stop), execute, then run the project's verification command.

Review-then-ship: when AGENTS.md or the current thread asks to "commit after review", "ship if green", or equivalent, load references/mode-ship.md after a clean review or finished plan, state "proceeding to ship", and do not ask again.

Get the Diff

Derive the review baseline from the user's words and current repository state. Do not ask for commits when the scope is already inferable:

• All local or uncommitted changes: inventory staged, unstaged, and untracked files, plus local commits ahead of the configured upstream. Being on the base branch does not make this scope ambiguous.
• PR or branch review: use the merge base through the reviewed head, then add any dirty files in that checkout as a separate surface.
• Since the last release: use the latest published stable tag through HEAD, not the local version field, then add dirty files.
• Recent N days or an explicit ref: resolve that time/ref boundary through HEAD, then add dirty files.
• Known-good or previous working version: compare that ref through HEAD; route to /hunt Bisect Mode only when the regression point itself is unknown.
• Whole-project audit: use Audit Mode rather than pretending one diff is the repository.

Freeze the resolved base, HEAD, worktree inventory, generated/distribution surfaces, and delegated scopes before review. Ask one narrow question only when two plausible baselines would materially change the verdict. If review fixes are applied or repository state moves, the old verdict expires: re-read HEAD, status, and the full resolved diff before signing off.

Scope

Measure the diff and classify depth:

Depth	Criteria	Reviewers
Quick	Under 100 lines, 1-5 files	Base review only
Standard	100-500 lines, or 6-10 files	Base + conditional specialists
Deep	500+ lines, 10+ files, or touches auth/payments/data mutation	Base + all specialists + adversarial pass

State the depth before proceeding.

Explicit depth language overrides the size thresholds. "All", "全部", "deep", "深入", or "仔细" means whole-scope coverage of the resolved inventory, even when the textual diff is small; it does not permit skipping untracked files, generated mirrors, required artifacts, or pending reviewers.

Static content diffs can stay quick even when they touch several generated files: version strings, dates, release-copy mirrors, sitemap dates, or one-for-one localization copy changes usually need line-by-line readback plus grep consistency, not a specialist fleet. Escalate only when the diff changes logic, generation rules, public distribution behavior, or user-facing semantics beyond the literal text replacement.

Did We Build What Was Asked?

Before reading code, check scope drift: do the diff and the stated goal match? Label: on target / drift / incomplete.

Every changed file and new public surface must trace to the stated goal in one sentence; a file, dependency, config knob, abstraction, generated artifact, workflow permission, or release behavior that cannot is drift until proven necessary. Any one of these is enough: a file unrelated to the goal, pure refactoring or unrelated deletion inside a fix or feature, an unmentioned dependency or helper, or a cleanup that quietly adds user-visible UI, default config, workflow permissions, or release behavior. For every new public setting, flag, environment variable, command, or service, ask who will change it and why one correct default cannot serve them; with no evidenced user split, treat the knob as drift and fix the default path instead.

Every review, unasked, runs an over-design pass: for each new file, option, fallback, layer, or abstraction, ask whether the change would still hold with it removed, and report each one that would as removable.

Question the Approach, Not Just the Diff

Scope drift checks the diff against the stated goal; this checks the goal against the approach. Skip when the user declares the route settled or the repo's design docs record the decision -- do not re-litigate deliberate trade-offs.

When findings cluster on one root cause -- the same bug class patched repeatedly, permission or state problems that follow from the architecture itself, a simple problem made complex -- stop listing patches and state the route verdict first: keep / adjust / replace / insufficient information. Compare a real alternative only when it eliminates the problem class at an acceptable migration cost; never manufacture one to fill the report. No patch list before the verdict.

Pattern-Fix Completeness

When the diff fixes one instance of a class-of-bug, grep the repo for the same shape (hunt's Scope Blast Mode) and confirm the other instances were handled. List any unswept sibling: a hard stop when it carries the same risk, advisory when lower-risk.

When the diff contains a recurring or hard-to-observe bug, captured output or asynchronous completion, simplification or deletion, history-sensitive normalization, non-atomic replacement of user files, broad destructive matchers, duplicated derivations, test-surface fidelity, never-shipped migrations, or unknown identifiers, load the matching section of references/review-patterns.md. Do not load that catalog for unrelated diffs.

CLI Command Surface

When a diff touches a CLI entrypoint, installer, completion, config/env handling, package wrapper, or a mutating command such as cleanup, update, uninstall, migration, or cache removal, load references/release-surfaces.md (CLI Command Surface) and work its checklist, then fill the CLI Command Surface block of the Recommended Context Shape in references/project-context.md before sign-off. The core stance: verify command contract and installed-runtime behavior, not just library tests, and treat every mutating command as a safety sink.

Terminal output is a rendered surface. After changing CLI-facing text, spacing, or layout, re-run the command and read the real output before claiming done; editing the string is not seeing the screen.

Skill, Plugin, And Packaged Install Surface

When a diff touches a skill, plugin, marketplace entry, installer, package allowlist, package manifest, generated mirror, or published archive, load references/release-surfaces.md (Packaged Install Surface) and verify the installed runtime contract through its five steps: real user install path, rebuilt package contents, isolated install smoke, noise filtering, and explicit gaps when the smoke cannot run. Manifest JSON, source tests, or a successful local import never substitute for installed-runtime proof.

Hard Rules

• No unverified claims. Do not write "I verified X", "I ran Y", "tests pass", or "this fixes Z" unless the shell output is in this turn's transcript. If you reason about behavior without running, say "based on reading the code" instead of "I verified". Every verification claim in the sign-off must point to a command that actually ran in this session, or be labelled as reused evidence naming the commit and inputs it came from and what was re-checked to confirm it still applies. Reuse the project allows is fine; presenting it as this session's run is not.
• Re-read source-of-truth facts. Refresh line numbers, worktree state, fallback behavior, locale coverage, artifact state, and the identity of any issue, PR, or thread in the current turn before citing or posting to it. Earlier context and reviewer notes are leads, not evidence.
• Public replies: the body follows /write Public Reply Mode; posting, editing, read-back, and closure follow references/public-reply.md.

Hard Stops (fix before merging)

Examples, not exhaustive -- flag any diff that could cause irreversible harm if merged unreviewed.

• Destructive auto-execution: any task marked "safe" or "auto-run" that modifies user-visible state (history files, config, preferences, installed software) must require explicit confirmation.
• Source and distribution out of sync: everything the source change implies downstream must be regenerated, tracked, uploaded, and version-consistent before declaring done: generated or bundled outputs rebuilt and included, every artifact named in release notes or workflows actually uploaded, every new helper module, reference file, or script present in the built archive, and version fields synchronized across manifests, package metadata, changelogs, tags, and lockfiles.
• Verifier failure layer unclear: if a verifier fails before assertions or due to missing optional dependencies, bootstrap noise, transient build-service crashes, unavailable simulators, or tool setup, classify setup versus product failure. Retry only with new evidence or a narrower environment. Do not call the repo broken until the intended test body or artifact check actually ran. The inverse is the same stop: a verifier that passes without running the real path -- a skipped optional-dependency job that still prints OK, a function that early-returns leaving output empty so a true-on-empty assertion passes, a render reported fixed but never opened -- is a hollow green. A pass counts only when at least one non-skipped, non-empty case exercised the path and the assertions fail on emptiness.
• Publishing over your own open findings: when the same run produced review findings and then reaches a ship action, every finding must be fixed, or restated as "known, shipping anyway" with its user impact and confirmed, before the release proceeds. A standing release authorization does not cover problems discovered after it was given.
• Injection and validation: SQL, command, path injection at system entry points. Credentials hardcoded, logged, committed, or copied into public docs.
• Dependency changes: unexpected additions or version bumps in package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, requirements.txt. Flag any new dependency not obviously required by the diff. The inverse is a finding too: a declared dependency or linked SDK with zero imports across the repo gets flagged to the maintainer, not silently removed (it may be staged for an upcoming feature, and unused analytics/telemetry SDKs still drag app review and privacy manifests). Removal needs the maintainer's go-ahead in the current turn, a grep proving zero references first, and a full build after. For lockfiles, automated security PRs, or version pins, load references/review-patterns.md (Dependency changes).
• Safety sinks: destructive file operations, shell or AppleScript construction, cwd/path/symlink traversal, approval or sandbox boundary changes, signing/appcast flows, and auth prompts need explicit review of validation, rollback, and user-confirmation behavior.

Finding Quality Gate

Every finding needs the exact file:line, the specific input or state that triggers the bad outcome, a read of upstream callers and downstream consumers rather than the function in isolation, and a severity a senior reviewer would raise at that level in a real PR; missing any of these, drop it or downgrade it to advisory. Before calling a change a regression, read its commit message and author intent: a deliberate maintainer change is a decision, not a finding. Vague findings train the reader to ignore real ones.

A clean review is a valid review. Do not manufacture findings to justify the invocation. Zero findings with a stated review surface is a complete output. Padding the report with low-confidence noise is a worse outcome than reporting nothing.

HIGH and CRITICAL also need why existing guards (validation, type system, upstream catch, framework default) do not already prevent it. Cannot show that? Downgrade to MEDIUM, or drop. "This might break under some condition" is not a HIGH.

Knowledge Sync

After reviewing the diff, check whether it introduces invariants not yet captured in project docs:

• New safety gate or path-guard rule goes to AGENTS.md
• New UI constraint (layout rule, animation, overlay registration) goes to the narrowest tracked project guidance reachable by the intended runtimes; use .claude/rules/*.md only when their entrypoints load it.
• New deploy/release step or artifact goes to AGENTS.md or docs/
• New cross-file sync requirement (enum and HTML anchors, Swift keys and xcstrings) goes to AGENTS.md
• A review report, scorecard, or diagnostic snapshot in the diff is evidence, not a durable doc: re-read the surface it names, and extract the stable rule into AGENTS/CLAUDE/rules/references instead of committing the snapshot.

If found, either apply the doc update as safe_auto (when the invariant is clear from the diff) or flag it in the sign-off as doc debt. When no new invariants exist, sign-off says doc debt: none.

Specialist Review (Standard and Deep only)

Load references/persona-catalog.md for activation, parallel or sequential review, and finding verification.

Before a whole-scope verdict, reconcile a completion ledger for every delegated review: assigned scope, returned status, and uncovered remainder. Wait for every active reviewer, or name its scope as unreviewed. Never say "all read", "full audit complete", or "no issues" while any reviewer or required verification is still pending.

Autofix Routing

Class	Definition	Action
safe_auto	Unambiguous, risk-free: typos, missing imports, style inconsistencies	Apply only after explicit write authorization; otherwise report it
gated_auto	Behavior fixes with a clear intended result: null checks, error handling additions	Apply within explicit repair authorization; ask only for scope expansion or an unresolved user choice
manual	Architecture or security tradeoffs with no settled intended result	Resolve from project context; present any remaining user decision
advisory	Informational only	Note in sign-off

Write authorization covers necessary fixes within its scope, including behavior changes needed for the requested result. A routing class does not create another approval step. In report-only mode, do not modify the worktree.

Any fix made during review invalidates the pre-fix verdict. Re-freeze the baseline, re-run the check that exposed the finding, refresh the sibling sweep, and complete the final adversarial pass required by the review depth before declaring ready.

Adversarial Pass (Deep only)

Run the four attack angles in references/persona-catalog.md. Convergence from independent angles raises confidence; singleton findings face the same per-finding skeptic verification as specialist claims. Suppress findings below 0.60 confidence.

Platform Operations

Derive the host CLI/API from public project docs; do not force GitHub commands onto other hosts, and confirm CI passes before merging. Poll CI as structured state, not streamed text: gh run view <id> --json status,conclusion (or the host's equivalent). Piping gh run watch, test output, or build output through tail/head swallows the real exit code and can report a failed or still-running run as green.

Verification

Use the project's known verification command appropriate to the changed surface. Otherwise, bash <skill-base-dir>/scripts/run-tests.sh from the target project root can discover a candidate command. Report the exit status and summary, with relevant failure output rather than full passing logs.

A failed check needs diagnosis; no detected command is a discovery gap, not proof of failure or of no verification surface. Inspect project docs, manifests, and CI for an appropriate check. Complete a read-only review with explicit evidence limits when no check is available. Block a fix or readiness claim only when required evidence is missing or failing, and ask for a command only if it cannot be recovered from project context.

For bug fixes: a regression test that fails on the old code must exist before the fix is done, run red on that code (hunt's Regression guard rule). Establish expected behavior independently of the implementation: updating a snapshot does not prove it is correct. For agent instructions, keyword checks prove text retention only; behavior checks inspect tool actions and resulting files or artifacts, including forbidden side effects. Exercise a known-good and a known-bad case before relying on a new checker, and compare baseline and candidate under the same runtime and inputs.

In a dirty or multi-agent checkout, a passing local build or test run is not proof your change is sound: unrelated WIP already in the tree can supply missing symbols, mask a break, or fail for reasons unrelated to you. Verify in isolation -- git worktree add --detach <known-good-commit>, git apply only the diff of the files you own, then build/test there. The clean isolated pass is the real signal; the contaminated local pass is not.

Gotchas

What happened	Rule
New file name duplicated a locale, platform, or suffix convention	Check the target directory's existing naming convention before creating or renaming files
Deployed without provider runtime or env checks	Follow the project's public deployment docs and compare provider config with local required env and runtime settings

Sign-off

Open the final message with the status line as plain prose before any table or detail: exactly where the work stands now, with the hash, tag, or blocker. A verdict buried under verification tables reads as unfinished; the tables support the verdict, they do not replace it.

status:           [committed and pushed as <hash> / staged, not committed / released vX.Y.Z / blocked on <what>]
files changed:    N (+X -Y)
scope:            on target / drift: [what] / removable: [what]
user-visible delta: none / [entry, UI, copy, behavior added, removed, or changed]
review depth:     quick / standard / deep
hard stops:       N found, N fixed, N deferred
sibling sweep:    N same-shape sites checked, N fixed / none found / not applicable
specialists:      [security, architecture] or none
new tests:        N
public actions:   replied #N, closed #N, reactions done / none pending
doc debt:         none / AGENTS.md needs X / rules need Y
verification:     [command] -> pass / fail

public actions lists every outward-facing step the task implied (issue replies, closures, release reactions) with its done or pending state; an external action the user has to ask about was not finished.

For a whole-scope or post-fix verdict, scope is backed by the frozen baseline and current inventory, not by the last patch viewed. For a ship action, the status line is incomplete until every currently authorized ledger item is done, not applicable, or blocked with evidence.

A turn that wrote files ends with the actual output of git status --short --branch and, when it pushed, the status,conclusion of the CI run for that sha; if either command was not run, the first line says which.