Review code

/volley:review-code

Claude reads what Codex built and judges it.

Steps for Claude

1. Verify .volley/ is initialized and the lock allows Claude to act.

   [ -d .volley ] || { echo "ERROR: .volley/ not found. Run /volley:setup first." >&2; exit 1; }
   [ -f .volley/STATE ] || { echo "ERROR: .volley/STATE not found. Run /volley:setup first." >&2; exit 1; }
   . "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/lib.sh"
   volley_state_assert_active .volley/STATE claude || exit 1
   

2. Resolve the diff to review.

   • If user passed a range argument (e.g. HEAD~3..HEAD), use that.
   • Otherwise, default to uncommitted changes:

     git diff HEAD
     

   • If diff is empty, tell user "No changes to review. Did Codex finish?" and stop.

3. Locate the plan and HANDOFF. Same logic as /volley:review-plan for finding the latest PLAN.md. Read the plan and .volley/HANDOFF.md content.

4. Read the diff into context. Use Bash to capture the diff and Read tools as needed for full context on changed files.

5. Review with these prompts in mind:

   • Does each change implement a specific PLAN task or acceptance criterion? (Cite which.)
   • Are there changes that go beyond the plan's scope?
   • Are there gaps - acceptance criteria not addressed?
   • Are the tests covering the new code?
   • Any obvious correctness, safety, or style issues for this codebase?

6. Write .volley/CODE-REVIEW.md with this structure:

   # Claude Code Review
   
   **Diff range:** <range used>
   **Reviewed:** <ISO timestamp>
   **Plan:** <plan path>
   
   ## Verdict
   SHIP | FIX | DISCUSS
   
   ## Coverage of acceptance criteria
   - Criterion 1: ✓ addressed in <file:line>
   - Criterion 2: ✗ not addressed
   - ...
   
   ## Coverage of plan tasks
   - Task N: ✓
   - Task M: partial (missing X)
   
   ## Issues found
   - (file:line — description)
   
   ## Out-of-plan changes
   - (file:line — what was changed beyond the plan, with judgement)
   
   ## Suggested next moves
   - (concrete actions)
   

7. Surface the review inline.

8. Reconcile the GitHub issue (only if this repo uses the issue-tracking rule). This step is conditional - skip entirely if the repo's CLAUDE.md does not define the "GitHub Issue Tracking Rule" or no matching issue exists.

   • Find the plan's issue: gh issue list --state open --search "[NN-MM] in:title" (derive NN-MM from the plan filename). If none, skip silently.
   • Cross-reference Codex's task log for what actually got built:

     cat .volley/IMPLEMENTATION-LOG.md
     

   • For each task marked ✓ in the Coverage of plan tasks table above (i.e. verified by this review, not merely logged by Codex), tick its checkbox in the issue body. Use gh issue edit <n> --body-file with the updated body, or the GraphQL updateIssue mutation. Do not tick tasks marked partial or ✗.
   • Only close the issue when all tasks are ticked AND the verdict is SHIP AND NN-MM-SUMMARY.md exists. Prefer letting the PR close it via Closes #N; if committing directly, gh issue close <n> with a comment linking the commit.
   • On FIX/DISCUSS: tick only the verified tasks, leave the issue open, and add a brief comment noting what remains.

9. Print the next-step block.

   • If SHIP: volley_next_step "git commit + open PR" "Code looks good. Commit (your existing flow) and open the PR."
   • If FIX: volley_next_step_options "Option A|/volley:implement|Hand back to Codex for fixes" "Option B|edit code yourself|Quick edits Claude can make directly"
   • If DISCUSS: volley_next_step_done "Open issues to talk through with the user before the next move."