Code review simplify

Unified code review + simplification. Single-pass, multi-dimensional scoring, adaptive depth. Integrates with evolve-loop auditor and builder phases.

Contents

• Architecture — hybrid pipeline+agentic model
• Single-Pass Flow — read diff once, analyze both dimensions
• Multi-Dimensional Scoring — 4 dimensions with numeric scores
• Adaptive Depth Routing — scale analysis with diff complexity
• Integration Hooks — evolve-loop auditor and builder wiring
• Simplification Catalog — what to simplify and when
• Output Schema — structured review+simplify report

Architecture

Hybrid pipeline+agentic model. Structured passes handle known patterns cheaply; agentic reasoning handles contextual issues that require understanding intent.

Input: git diff (changed files)
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  PIPELINE LAYER (fast)  │  Deterministic pattern checks
│  ─────────────────────  │
│  1. Complexity scan     │  Cognitive complexity, nesting depth
│  2. Smell detection     │  22-smell catalog from detect-code-smells
│  3. Security scan       │  OWASP patterns, secrets, injection
│  4. Style check         │  Naming, file size, function length
│  5. Duplication check   │  Near-duplicate code blocks
└─────────┬───────────────┘
          │ Structured findings
          ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  AGENTIC LAYER (deep)   │  LLM-powered contextual analysis
│  ─────────────────────  │
│  6. Logic correctness   │  Edge cases, off-by-one, null handling
│  7. Intent alignment    │  Does change match acceptance criteria?
│  8. Cross-file impact   │  Dependency effects, API contract breaks
│  9. Simplification      │  Extract Method, reduce nesting, dedup
│  10. Compound risk      │  Future maintenance cost assessment
└─────────┬───────────────┘
          │ Contextual findings
          ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  SCORING & REPORT       │  Aggregate into multi-dimensional scores
│  ─────────────────────  │
│  Composite score 0.0-1.0│
│  Per-dimension scores   │
│  Simplification actions │
│  Priority-ranked issues │
└─────────────────────────┘

Why hybrid? Pipeline catches 60-70% of issues at ~5% of the token cost. Agentic layer focuses expensive reasoning on the 30-40% that requires context. Research: Cursor BugBot's biggest quality leap was pipeline→agentic; Anthropic's review dispatches parallel specialist agents.

Token budget: Pipeline layer ~2-5K tokens. Agentic layer ~15-40K tokens (scales with diff). Total: ~20-45K per review pass.

Single-Pass Flow

Read the diff once. Run both review and simplification analysis on the same context. This saves ~40-50% tokens vs. invoking separate review and simplify agents.

Step 1: LOAD (once)

# Detect context: pre-commit (HEAD has uncommitted changes) vs post-commit (standalone)
DIFF_STAT=$(git diff HEAD --stat 2>/dev/null || echo "")
if [ -n "$DIFF_STAT" ]; then
  REF="HEAD"   # pre-commit self-review: review uncommitted changes
else
  REF="HEAD~1" # standalone invocation: review last committed change
fi
DIFF=$(git diff "$REF" --stat)
DIFF_LINES=$(git diff "$REF" --numstat | awk '{s+=$1+$2} END {print s}')
CHANGED_FILES=$(git diff "$REF" --name-only)

Step 2: PIPELINE (structured checks)

Run deterministic checks on each changed file:

Check	Tool	Threshold	Finding Type
Cognitive complexity	legacy/scripts/verification/complexity-check.sh	> 15 per function	complexity
Nesting depth	grep-based	> 4 levels	complexity
Function length	line count	> 50 lines	maintainability
File length	line count	> 800 lines	maintainability
Near-duplicates	content hash	> 6 similar lines	maintainability
Hardcoded secrets	pattern match	any match	security
Injection vectors	pattern match	any match	security
Naming conventions	project config	deviation	style

Step 3: AGENTIC (contextual analysis)

LLM analyzes the diff with pipeline findings as context:

Analysis	What to Check	Score Impact
Logic correctness	Edge cases, boundary conditions, null/undefined, off-by-one	correctness score
Intent alignment	Acceptance criteria match, no scope creep, no missing requirements	correctness score
Cross-file impact	Breaking API changes, dependency effects, import correctness	correctness + security
Simplification opportunities	Extract Method candidates, reducible nesting, inlineable abstractions	maintainability score
Performance concerns	N+1 queries, missing indexes, unnecessary allocations, blocking calls	performance score
Security review	Auth checks, input validation, error info leakage	security score

Step 4: SCORE & REPORT

Aggregate findings into the multi-dimensional scoring output (see below).

Multi-Dimensional Scoring

Four dimensions, each scored 0.0 to 1.0. Replaces binary PASS/FAIL with actionable numeric scores.

Dimension	Weight	What It Measures	Score Guide
correctness	0.35	Logic errors, edge cases, intent alignment, test coverage	1.0 = no issues; 0.7 = minor edge case; 0.3 = logic bug; 0.0 = critical flaw
security	0.25	Injection, auth, secrets, input validation, error leakage	1.0 = hardened; 0.7 = minor gap; 0.3 = exploitable; 0.0 = critical vuln
performance	0.15	Complexity, N+1, blocking, memory, unnecessary work	1.0 = optimal; 0.7 = acceptable; 0.3 = slow path; 0.0 = denial-of-service risk
maintainability	0.25	Readability, complexity, duplication, naming, file size	1.0 = clean; 0.7 = minor smell; 0.3 = high cognitive load; 0.0 = unmaintainable

Composite score: composite = 0.35*correctness + 0.25*security + 0.15*performance + 0.25*maintainability

Verdict mapping:

Composite	Verdict	Action
>= 0.8	PASS	Ship immediately
0.6 - 0.79	WARN	Ship with noted issues; simplification recommended
< 0.6	FAIL	Block shipping; fix required

Simplification trigger: If maintainability < 0.7, auto-generate simplification suggestions (see Simplification Catalog).

Confidence: Each dimension includes a confidence (0.0-1.0). If any dimension's confidence < 0.7, escalate to WARN regardless of score.

Adaptive Depth Routing

Scale analysis intensity with diff complexity. Small changes get lightweight review; large changes get full multi-agent analysis.

Tier	Trigger	Pipeline	Agentic	Token Budget
Lightweight	< 50 changed lines, 1-3 files	Full pipeline checks	Single-pass agentic (no specialists)	~10-15K
Standard	50-200 lines, 3-10 files	Full pipeline checks	Full agentic analysis (all 5 checks)	~20-35K
Full Review	> 200 lines, 10+ files, or security-sensitive	Full pipeline checks	Multi-agent specialist panel: correctness + security + performance agents	~40-80K

Security-sensitive detection: Files matching these patterns auto-escalate to full review:

• auth*, *login*, *password*, *token*, *secret*
• *payment*, *billing*, *checkout*
• *eval*, *grader*, *.evolve/evals/*
• Any file in agents/, skills/*/SKILL.md

Risk-based routing: Files with high churn (> 5 commits in last 10 cycles) or high fan-in (imported by > 5 other files) get escalated one tier.

Integration Hooks

Evolve-Loop Auditor Integration

The auditor invokes this skill as an optional enhancement to its review pass:

Auditor Standard Flow:
  1. Read build-report.md
  2. Run code quality checks          ← ENHANCED by pipeline layer
  3. Run security checks               ← ENHANCED by security scan
  4. Run hallucination detection        (unchanged)
  5. Run pipeline integrity checks      (unchanged)
  6. Run eval verification              (unchanged)
  7. Generate verdict                   ← ENHANCED by multi-dimensional scoring

Auditor invocation: When the auditor encounters code changes (not doc-only or config-only), it can invoke this skill's structured checks to supplement its review. The skill's composite score feeds into the auditor's verdict logic.

Configuration in evolve-auditor.md:

### Optional Skill Consultation
- **code-review-simplify**: For code changes, invoke `skills/code-review-simplify/SKILL.md` 
  pipeline layer. Use composite score to supplement verdict. If maintainability < 0.7, 
  append simplification suggestions to audit-report.md.

Evolve-Loop Builder Integration

The builder can invoke this skill post-implementation for self-review:

Builder Self-Review (after implementation, before reporting):
  1. Run eval graders (existing)
  2. Run code-review-simplify lightweight tier
  3. If maintainability < 0.7: apply simplification suggestions before reporting
  4. Include self-review score in build-report.md

Builder invocation: After implementing a task and before writing build-report.md, the builder runs this skill's lightweight tier on its own changes. Simplification suggestions with maintainability < 0.7 are applied inline. This catches issues before the auditor sees them, reducing audit-fix cycles.

Standalone Invocation

The skill can be invoked directly outside the evolve-loop:

# Review + simplify changed files
/evo:code-review-simplify [--tier lightweight|standard|full] [--files <paths>]

Simplification Catalog

When maintainability < 0.7, generate simplification suggestions from this catalog. Prioritize by impact and confidence.

Category	Technique	When to Apply	Confidence
Complexity	Extract Method	Function > 30 lines or complexity > 10	High (0.9)
Complexity	Flatten nesting	Nesting > 3 levels, guard clauses applicable	High (0.9)
Complexity	Decompose conditional	Complex boolean expressions (> 3 operators)	High (0.85)
Duplication	Extract shared utility	Near-duplicate blocks (> 6 lines, > 80% similar)	Medium (0.75)
Readability	Rename for clarity	Ambiguous names (< 3 chars, generic like data/temp)	Medium (0.7)
Readability	Replace magic numbers	Hardcoded literals in logic branches	High (0.85)
Abstraction	Inline over-abstraction	Single-use wrapper with no added value	Medium (0.7)
Abstraction	Remove dead code	Unreachable branches, unused imports/vars	High (0.9)

Constraints:

• Only suggest localized refactorings (same file or module). LLMs are weak at cross-module architectural refactoring.
• Max 5 simplification suggestions per review. Focus on highest-impact.
• Each suggestion must include before/after code snippets and estimated complexity reduction.
• Never suggest simplification that changes external behavior (pure refactoring only).

Output Schema

The skill produces a structured report:

# Code Review + Simplify Report

## Summary
- **Tier:** lightweight | standard | full review
- **Changed:** X files, Y lines
- **Composite Score:** 0.XX
- **Verdict:** PASS | WARN | FAIL

## Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Confidence | Key Finding |
|-----------|-------|------------|-------------|
| correctness | 0.X | 0.X | <summary> |
| security | 0.X | 0.X | <summary> |
| performance | 0.X | 0.X | <summary> |
| maintainability | 0.X | 0.X | <summary> |

## Issues (priority-ranked)
| # | Severity | Dimension | File:Line | Description | Suggestion |
|---|----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|-----------|

## Simplification Suggestions
| # | Technique | File:Line | Before (snippet) | After (snippet) | Impact |
|---|----------|-----------|-------------------|-----------------|--------|

## Pipeline Findings
<structured check results>

## Agentic Findings
<contextual analysis results>

JSON variant (for programmatic consumption by auditor/builder):

{
  "tier": "lightweight|standard|full",
  "composite": 0.0,
  "verdict": "PASS|WARN|FAIL",
  "dimensions": {
    "correctness": {"score": 0.0, "confidence": 0.0, "findings": []},
    "security": {"score": 0.0, "confidence": 0.0, "findings": []},
    "performance": {"score": 0.0, "confidence": 0.0, "findings": []},
    "maintainability": {"score": 0.0, "confidence": 0.0, "findings": []}
  },
  "simplifications": [],
  "issueCount": {"critical": 0, "high": 0, "medium": 0, "low": 0}
}