# Skill: code-review

Structured code review against implementation plan.

## Invoked by

🔍 Reviewer mode

## Required Inputs

| Input | Source | Example |
|-------|--------|---------|
| `TICKET_KEY` | Jira issue key | `ESIDEPAISY-12081` |
| `MODULE` | PAISY module name | `eau`, `eubp`, `svmeldungen` |

## Output

Markdown file: `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-review.md`

## Steps

### 1. Read the plan document

```bash
cat docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-plan.md
```

Extract: planned changes, affected files, expected patterns, acceptance criteria.

### 2. Read the test plan (if exists)

```bash
cat docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-testplan.md
```

Cross-reference: are all planned test cases implemented?

### 3. Get the diff

```bash
cd /Users/pplate/git/paisy-<TICKET_KEY>
git diff origin/current --name-only
git diff origin/current --stat
git diff origin/current
```

### 4. Read changed files

For each changed file, read the full file to understand context — not just the diff hunks.

```bash
cd /Users/pplate/git/paisy-<TICKET_KEY>
git diff origin/current --name-only | while read f; do echo "=== $f ==="; done
```

### 5. Run the review checklist

For each changed file, verify:

| # | Check | What to look for |
|---|-------|-----------------|
| 1 | Plan compliance | All plan items implemented? Nothing missing, nothing extra? |
| 2 | Pattern correctness | Correct PAISY patterns used? (AbstractMeldung, Datenbaustein, ServiceCenter, EMFactory, JAXB) |
| 3 | No `src.gen/` changes | Generated sources must never be modified manually |
| 4 | Logging | `@Slf4j` or `@Log4j2` with parameterized messages (`log.debug("x: {}", v)`) — no string concatenation |
| 5 | German domain terms | Domain terms preserved: `Fehlzeiten`, `Lohnkonto`, `Vorlaufsatz`, `Nachlaufsatz` |
| 6 | Error handling | PAISY `F;` responses checked before parsing? Null-safe patterns? |
| 7 | Date handling | Correct formatters? Empty date checks (`00.00.0000`, `0000000`, `9999999`)? |
| 8 | Test coverage | Every new/modified public method has a test? Edge cases covered? |
| 9 | Flyway migrations | Correct naming convention? Dual H2/Oracle? Type mapping correct? |
| 10 | No hardcoded values | No hardcoded BBNR, sprint IDs, Epic keys, instance names? |
| 11 | Field visibility | `protected` for shared fields, `private` with Lombok for DTOs? |
| 12 | Annotations | Correct use of `@Service`/`@Lazy`, `@Transactional`, `@XmlElement`? |

### 6. Check test quality

```bash
cd /Users/pplate/git/paisy-<TICKET_KEY>
# Find new/modified test files
git diff origin/current --name-only | grep -E "Test\.java$"
```

For each test file:
- Meaningful assertions (not just `assertNotNull`)?
- Edge cases covered?
- Mocking done correctly (Mockito patterns)?
- Test naming convention: `test<What>_<Scenario>_<Expected>()`?

### 7. Run tests

```bash
cd /Users/pplate/git/paisy-<TICKET_KEY>
mvn test -pl java/modules/cs-modules/<MODULE> -f java/pom.xml
```

### 8. Generate review document

Write `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-review.md`:

```markdown
# Code Review: <TICKET_KEY> — <Summary>

**Datum:** <today>
**Modul:** <MODULE>
**Reviewer:** Roo (Reviewer)
**Branch:** <branch name>
**Status:** ✅ Approved / ⚠️ Approved with comments / ❌ Changes requested

---

## Zusammenfassung

<1-2 sentence summary of the review outcome>

## Geprüfte Dateien

| Datei | Änderung | Bewertung |
|-------|---------|-----------|
| `<path>` | Neu/Geändert | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ |

## Checkliste

| # | Prüfpunkt | Ergebnis | Anmerkung |
|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
| 1 | Plan-Konformität | ✅ | Alle geplanten Änderungen umgesetzt |
| 2 | Pattern-Korrektheit | ✅ | AbstractMeldung korrekt erweitert |
| 3 | Keine src.gen/ Änderungen | ✅ | — |
| 4 | Logging | ⚠️ | Zeile 42: String-Konkatenation → parameterized |
| 5 | Deutsche Domänenbegriffe | ✅ | — |
| 6 | Fehlerbehandlung | ✅ | F;-Prüfung vorhanden |
| 7 | Datumsbehandlung | ✅ | — |
| 8 | Testabdeckung | ✅ | 7 Tests, alle bestanden |
| 9 | Flyway-Migrationen | ✅ | H2 + Oracle korrekt |
| 10 | Keine Hardcoded-Werte | ✅ | — |
| 11 | Feld-Sichtbarkeit | ✅ | — |
| 12 | Annotationen | ✅ | — |

## Befunde

### ⚠️ Hinweise (non-blocking)

1. **<file>:<line>** — <description of finding>
   - Empfehlung: <suggested fix>

### ❌ Blocker (must fix)

1. **<file>:<line>** — <description of critical finding>
   - Begründung: <why this must be fixed>

## Tests

- **Ausgeführt:** <N> Tests
- **Bestanden:** <N> ✅
- **Fehlgeschlagen:** <N> ❌
- **Build:** ✅ Grün / ❌ Rot

## Empfehlung

<Final recommendation: merge / fix and re-review / reject>
```

### 9. Store in BigMind

```python
memory_store_fact(
    category="codebase",
    fact=f"{TICKET_KEY}: Code review completed — {status}. {findings_count} findings ({blockers} blockers)."
)
```

## Expected Output

- Review document at `docs/<MODULE>/<TICKET_KEY>/<TICKET_KEY>-review.md`
- All tests executed and results documented
- Clear recommendation: merge / fix / reject

## Error Handling

| Error | Resolution |
|-------|------------|
| No plan document found | Review without plan — note in review that plan was missing |
| Build fails | Document build failure as blocker, don't proceed with detailed review |
| No tests found | Flag as blocker — every change needs tests |
| Worktree not found | Check if `/Users/pplate/git/paisy-<TICKET_KEY>` exists, or use main repo with branch checkout |

## Severity Levels

| Level | Symbol | Meaning | Action |
|-------|--------|---------|--------|
| Blocker | ❌ | Must fix before merge | Changes requested |
| Warning | ⚠️ | Should fix, not blocking | Approved with comments |
| Info | ℹ️ | Suggestion for improvement | Approved |
| OK | ✅ | No issues | — |

## Language

- Review document: **German**
- Code references (class names, methods, patterns): English as-is
- Checklist items: German