fix: auto-save uncommitted implementation work (te-3tj, gt-pvx safety net)

.claude/commands/review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+---
+description: Review code changes with structured grading (A-F)
+allowed-tools: Bash(git diff:*), Bash(git rev-parse:*), Bash(gh pr diff:*)
+argument-hint: [--staged | --branch | --pr <url>]
+---
+
+Review code and provide a structured assessment with grading.
+
+Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
+
+## Diff Source Resolution
+
+Determine the diff to review based on arguments:
+
+| Argument | Diff command | Use case |
+|----------|-------------|----------|
+| (none) | `git diff` + `git diff --staged` | Review uncommitted + staged changes |
+| `--staged` | `git diff --staged` | Review only staged changes |
+| `--branch` | `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD` | Review branch diff vs base branch |
+| `--pr <url>` | `gh pr diff <url>` | Review a GitHub PR |
+
+### Step 1: Get the diff
+
+Based on the arguments, run the appropriate diff command:
+
+```bash
+# Default (no args): uncommitted + staged
+DIFF=$(git diff; git diff --staged)
+
+# --staged: only staged
+DIFF=$(git diff --staged)
+
+# --branch: branch diff (detect base branch)
+BASE=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD@{upstream} 2>/dev/null | sed 's|origin/||' || git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||' || echo "main")
+DIFF=$(git diff origin/$BASE...HEAD)
+
+# --pr <url>: PR diff
+DIFF=$(gh pr diff <url>)
+```
+
+If the diff is empty, report "No changes to review" and stop.
+
+### Step 2: Review the diff
+
+Review the diff systematically. For each issue found, classify by severity:
+
+**CRITICAL** - Must fix before merge:
+- Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass, secrets in code)
+- Data loss risks (missing transactions, unsafe deletes)
+- Correctness bugs (race conditions, nil dereference, logic errors)
+
+**MAJOR** - Should fix before merge:
+- Logic errors that may not crash but produce wrong results
+- Missing error handling on external calls
+- API contract violations
+- Missing tests for critical paths
+
+**MINOR** - Nice to fix:
+- Style inconsistencies with surrounding code
+- Naming issues (unclear or misleading names)
+- Missing comments on non-obvious logic
+- Minor code smells
+
+For each issue, note:
+- File and line number
+- Severity (CRITICAL, MAJOR, MINOR)
+- Description of the issue
+- Suggested fix (specific, actionable)
+
+### Step 3: Assign grade
+
+Grade is determined by the highest severity issue found:
+
+| Grade | Criteria | Verdict |
+|-------|----------|---------|
+| **A** | No CRITICAL, MAJOR, or MINOR issues | PASS |
+| **B** | MINOR issues only (no CRITICAL or MAJOR) | PASS |
+| **C** | MAJOR issues present (no CRITICAL) | FAIL |
+| **D** | CRITICAL issues present | FAIL |
+| **F** | Unreviewable (empty diff, binary files, generated code only) | SKIP |
+
+### Step 4: Output structured review
+
+Output the review in this exact format:
+
+```
+Grade: <A|B|C|D|F>
+
+CRITICAL (<count> issues)
+  <file>:<line> — <description>
+    Suggested fix: <actionable fix>
+
+MAJOR (<count> issues)
+  <file>:<line> — <description>
+    Suggested fix: <actionable fix>
+
+MINOR (<count> issues)
+  <file>:<line> — <description>
+    Suggested fix: <actionable fix>
+
+Summary: <N> CRITICAL, <N> MAJOR, <N> MINOR
+Verdict: <PASS|FAIL|SKIP>
+```
+
+Omit empty severity sections (e.g., if no CRITICAL issues, don't print the CRITICAL section).
+
+If Grade is A, output:
+```
+Grade: A
+
+No issues found.
+
+Summary: 0 CRITICAL, 0 MAJOR, 0 MINOR
+Verdict: PASS
+```