feat(review): add /review:quality-gate code-design mode by kyle-sexton · Pull Request #8388 · melodic-software/claude-code-plugins

kyle-sexton · 2026-10-19T03:50:51Z

Summary

Adds a code-design mode to /review:quality-gate. It loads the consumer's review criteria through the standards contract and falls back to small bundled criteria when the consumer has none. It rates Duplicated Code that the diff introduces with no shared source or sync check as CRITICAL, naming the repeated fact and the later change that would make the copies diverge; every other repetition is SUGGESTION, as is Markdown repetition and anything under Quality bar: prototype. A consumer standard that contradicts a bundled default wins, and the report says Overrides bundled default <principle> per <standards file>. A missing Quality bar: line is treated as production, and the report says so.

Behavior change: a code-design CRITICAL is a merge blocker in unattended lanes, like any other CRITICAL the gate reports (approved as plan item DA-A).

Fix

plugins/review/skills/quality-gate/context/code-design.md (new): bundled criteria, the cascade rule, the CRITICAL exemptions (contract-restatement markers, declared registries, generated files, fixtures, rename diffs; no file-count threshold), consumer-criteria loading and the reviewer brief. The mode always dispatches a fresh-context review:brief-reviewer.
SKILL.md: code-design in the description, argument hint and router table.
context/phase-boundary.md: code-design reads --base and --quality-bar, and its brief carries the consumer and bundled criteria paths. Built on refactor(review): let /review:quality-gate take phase-boundary inputs (worktree, base SHA, quality bar, report-only) #8327's merged phase-boundary inputs, including its cause-based out-of-phase rule.
Five eval cases under plugins/review/evals/qg-code-design-* and a review changelog fragment.

Verification

bash scripts/check-changed-skills.sh origin/main: PASS (0 errors, 7 advisory warnings).
bash scripts/validate-plugins.sh --only review: all manifests and the catalog validated, 0 failing tests.
bash plugins/review/tests/change-set-block.test.sh: all cases passed.
python3 -I -B plugins/evals/skills/validate/scripts/validate-cases.py plugins/review/evals: no FAIL (WARN only).
Scaffolded-standards probe: the qg-code-design-override scaffold writes docs/standards/service-boundaries.md, and its emits-override-line grader, which matches that path in the output, passed in the with-plugin runs, so a docs/standards/ file written by scaffold_script is readable in an eval run.

Paid evals: claude plugin eval, plugin vs no-plugin, 3 runs each, --scaffold, judge opus, threshold 0.8.

Case	With plugin	Without	Delta
`qg-code-design-cascade`	1.0	0.33	+0.67
`qg-code-design-sanctioned`	1.0	0.67	+0.33
`qg-code-design-markdown`	1.0	0.25	+0.75
`qg-code-design-prototype`	1.0	0.25	+0.75
`qg-code-design-override`	0.92 (2/3 pass; one run tripped `no-blocking-copy-finding`)	0.25	+0.67

Total cost about $9.8.

bash scripts/check-affected.sh --tests --base origin/main on the merged head: exit 0, 8 passed, 1 skipped (SKIP ruff (no changed .py)).

Left out: the one check-affected skip is ruff, which has no Python file in this diff to lint.

Acceptance criteria

grep -c "code-design" on the quality-gate SKILL.md is ≥ 2 (it is 4), and context/code-design.md exists.
Probe that a docs/standards/ file written by a scaffold_script is readable in an eval run; result recorded under Verification.
Eval cases qg-code-design-cascade, -sanctioned, -markdown, -prototype, -override, run with and without the plugin; deltas under Verification.
check-changed-skills.sh origin/main exits 0 and check-affected.sh --tests exits 0; its only SKIP line is ruff, since the diff has no .py file.
A changelog fragment for the review plugin.

Every quality-gate mode takes --worktree, --base, --quality-bar and --report-only, so an orchestrator can review a phase diff in a worker's worktree. With a base SHA no pull-request lookup or fetch runs. Adds the qg-phase-boundary-worktree eval case. Refs #8327 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The phase-boundary inputs are passed explicitly by an orchestrator, so the description needs no new trigger phrase. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…-gate-phase-boundary-inputs

…d grants Restore the argument-hint to the mode set so it fits the 100-character budget and matches the lead of the Arguments line; the phase-boundary flags stay documented in the Arguments line and context/phase-boundary.md. Remove the allowed-tools entries that put a wildcard before the git subcommand (git -C * ...). A wildcard there also approves options such as -c core.fsmonitor=<cmd>, which runs a program, in a skill that reviews untrusted diffs. Worktree-targeted commands go through normal permission handling. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Under --base or --worktree, code mode skips the pr-review-toolkit path for its code-reviewer fallback, and downstream mode skips the remote downstream_probe layer and treats the floor as report. Under --report-only the size-crossing loop reads git diff -z instead of a written path file. Name the modes --quality-bar applies to, pass spec text to the spec reviewer, and fail the eval grader only on a finding in admin.js, not on a note that it predates the base. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

- Name pr and close-out in the --quality-bar row; brief reviewers with each mode's own required inputs; restatement dispatches under --base. - Under --report-only the standards ladder takes its non-interactive rung. - code skips size crossings under --worktree; define the report-only base. - Step 0 skips the PR-exists signal with --base; drop restated upstream. - Eval: fail on any Write, add a no-Edit grader. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

code-reviewer, security-reviewer and architecture-guardian run only the change-set commands their brief supplies (worktree path and base SHA), with no gh lookup, fetch or ls-remote; without one, step 2 is unchanged. phase-boundary.md says the brief replaces that step. criteria mode under --base or --worktree dispatches a fresh-context review:brief-reviewer instead of reviewing inline. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Restatement mode now dispatches its batch reviewer under --worktree as well as --base, so a worktree-only run no longer reviews inline from the invoking checkout. The phase-boundary reviewer brief names the worktree's absolute path as the file-read root, and code-reviewer, security-reviewer and architecture-guardian resolve every Read, Grep, Glob and listed untracked path under a supplied worktree. The advisory line no longer reads as if per-slice passes the plan's rationale. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Replace the per-command worktree anchoring with one rule: when the brief supplies a worktree, every command and tool call in the review targets it (git via git -C, Read/Grep/Glob, untracked paths, and any other command such as a dependency audit), never the invoking checkout. Stated identically in code-reviewer, security-reviewer and architecture-guardian, and in the quality-gate phase-boundary brief for every dispatched reviewer, review:brief-reviewer included. The downstream probe's repository root is the worktree path under --worktree. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…puts

…alternation typos read the [Ss]earch character class as the misspelling "earch" and failed lint-repo. (?:search|Search) matches the same strings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The mode loads the consumer's review criteria through the standards resolution ladder, falls back to small bundled criteria (Duplicated Code, Shotgun Surgery, Speculative Generality), and dispatches a fresh-context brief-reviewer. Repetition is CRITICAL only when the diff introduces an unsynced copy in code, naming the fact and the diverging change; Markdown, cascades and the prototype bar stay SUGGESTION. A contradicting consumer standard wins and the report names the overridden default; with no quality bar the review assumes production and says so. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Five plugin-eval cases cover the mode's severity rules: an introduced, unsynced code copy is CRITICAL with the production assumption named; a declared-registry entry and a file move are not CRITICAL; Markdown repetition and the prototype bar stay SUGGESTION; a contradicting docs/standards file produces the override line. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The no-critical and repetition-is-suggestion graders now fail only on a rated finding (a severity table cell, a line that starts with the severity, a (CRITICAL) or [CRITICAL] label, or Severity: CRITICAL) and pass a negated mention such as "Not CRITICAL: setup.md is Markdown". The cascade grader requires the CRITICAL finding to name FREE_SHIPPING_THRESHOLD or 50, not the word threshold. code-design.md states that its repetition rule overrides severity.md's "code duplication" IMPORTANT example. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…e-code-design-mode

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-19T03:52:54Z

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-19T03:54:25.373748Z	`c6b5d4c`	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

github-actions · 2026-10-19T03:54:38Z

claude-security-review reviewed 2cfb05fff81155ee66ce6fbc8d800e126aa1b464: 0 finding(s), 0 as inline comments.

Security review: no findings.

The change since c6b5d4c is one line in plugins/review/evals/qg-code-design-cascade/graders/names-production-assumption.md. It rewrites a regex grader pattern: assum\w* becomes (?:assume[sd]?|assuming|assumptions?).

Attack surface: None. The file is an eval grader fixture. It holds no secrets, and no command, path, template or SQL construction reads it. It also sets no permissions and has no Actions surface.
Regex cost: The pattern uses only bounded [^\n]{0,80} gaps and flat alternations, with no nested or overlapping quantifiers. A crafted model output therefore cannot trigger catastrophic backtracking in the grader.
Instruction surface: The edit narrows which words a grader accepts. It does not delete or soften a standing instruction (CLAUDE.md, rules, a skill body, or a hook block list). The instruction-exception-register lens does not apply, and no protected control is removed.

Skip gate 2 applies: the diff has no security-relevant surface. I posted nothing.

github-actions · 2026-10-19T03:54:53Z

claude-review reviewed 2cfb05fff81155ee66ce6fbc8d800e126aa1b464: 0 finding(s), 0 as inline comments.

Incremental review of 2cfb05f, which changes one file: plugins/review/evals/qg-code-design-cascade/graders/names-production-assumption.md.

The change replaces assum\w* with (?:assume[sd]?|assuming|assumptions?) in both alternations of the regex. I read the diff and the grader file. I did not run the regex or the eval.

Coverage: the new group matches the natural forms a report would use: assume, assumes, assumed, assuming, assumption and assumptions. default\w* and the other alternatives are unchanged.
Symmetry: both directions of the pattern, production … assumed and assumed … production, were edited the same way.
Syntax: the regex is well-formed, and the i flag is unchanged.
Narrowing: the pattern no longer matches stems such as assumpt… beyond those forms. For this grader that only removes loose matches.

I found no correctness or maintainability problems. All other files in the PR are unchanged since the last review at c6b5d4c.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

kyle-sexton and others added 16 commits October 18, 2026 20:22

fix(review): keep the quality-gate description unchanged

0a2652e

The phase-boundary inputs are passed explicitly by an orchestrator, so the description needs no new trigger phrase. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into refactor/8327-quality…

e685783

…-gate-phase-boundary-inputs

Merge branch 'main' into refactor/8327-quality-gate-phase-boundary-in…

a3c0d8e

…puts

fix(review): spell the stays-in-phase-diff grader's file match as an …

0618395

…alternation typos read the [Ss]earch character class as the misspelling "earch" and failed lint-repo. (?:search|Search) matches the same strings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feat/8329-quality-gat…

95ea2a4

…e-code-design-mode

Merge branch 'main' into feat/8329-quality-gate-code-design-mode

c6b5d4c

kyle-sexton marked this pull request as ready for review October 19, 2026 03:52

fix(review): avoid a typos false positive in a code-design grader

2cfb05f

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

kyle-sexton added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 19, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 41b4953 Oct 19, 2026
25 checks passed

kyle-sexton deleted the feat/8329-quality-gate-code-design-mode branch October 19, 2026 04:13

kyle-sexton mentioned this pull request Oct 19, 2026

docs(adr): record code-design review ownership and phase-boundary dispatch #8422

Merged

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

feat(review): add /review:quality-gate code-design mode - #8388

feat(review): add /review:quality-gate code-design mode#8388
kyle-sexton merged 17 commits into
mainfrom
feat/8329-quality-gate-code-design-mode

kyle-sexton commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

kyle-sexton commented Oct 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Fix

Verification

Acceptance criteria

Related

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codex Review Summary

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

kyle-sexton commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading