code-review

Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

• Conventions — does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards and Tidy First practices?
• Intent — does the change faithfully do what it claims to do?

Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.

Where This Fits

This skill owns micro / local quality — conventions, clarity, correctness of individual changes. It answers: "Is this change well-crafted and does it do what it says?"

For macro / structural quality (architecture, code judo, 1k-line limits, abstraction quality), use code-quality-review. That skill asks: "Is there a dramatically simpler structure hiding inside this implementation?"