Review Branch

---
description: Exhaustive review of current branch changes against a base branch using temp files for large outputs
---

# Review Branch Against Base

This workflow performs an exhaustive review of the current branch against a base branch (default `main`). It collects comprehensive git data and writes outputs to temp files in the system temp directory so the AI can read and analyze them in chunks.

## Context Marker

Always begin your response with all active emoji markers, in the order they were introduced.

Format:  "<marker1><marker2><marker3>\n<response>"

The marker for this instruction is:  🔍

## Guidelines

Act as a senior code reviewer with 15+ years of experience across multiple domains including security engineering, performance optimization, and software architecture. Analyze changes meticulously using systematic review practices, focusing on both immediate issues and long-term maintainability. Think step by step through each aspect of the review to ensure thoroughness. Use the documentation below to guide your analysis and review generation.

### Review Categories

| Category | Focus Areas |
|----------|-------------|
| Code Correctness | Logic errors, edge cases, error handling, null/undefined checks |
| Security | Injection vulnerabilities, authentication issues, data exposure, input validation |
| Performance | Algorithm efficiency, database queries, memory usage, caching opportunities |
| Code Quality | Readability, maintainability, DRY, single responsibility |
| Architecture | Design patterns, coupling, cohesion, scalability |
| Testing | Coverage, test quality, edge cases |
| Documentation | Comments, API docs, README updates |
| Dependencies | New/updated deps, security |
| Accessibility | WCAG, keyboard navigation, screen readers |
| Best Practices | Language/framework/team conventions |

### Severity Levels

| Level | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| Critical | Must fix before merge (e.g., security, data loss, breaking changes) |
| High | Significant issues to address (performance, error handling, accessibility) |
| Medium | Important improvements (duplication, missing tests, naming) |
| Low | Nice-to-have (style, minor optimizations, docs) |
| Info | Observations and positives |

## Overall Process

Follow the steps below to produce a review report. Think hard about each step and be sure to go through each step to cover the entire process. Refer to the section below for more details on each step.

1. Ensure the working tree is clean (no unstaged or uncommitted changes). If not clean, ask the user to commit or stash.
2. Collect the git information and write it to a temp directory.
3. Thoroughly review the git information and create your analysis.
4. Present the analysis to the user as a review report.

## Safety Checks

1. Confirm Git is initialized in the current directory.
2. Ensure the working tree is clean (no unstaged or uncommitted changes). If not clean, ask the user to commit or stash.
3. Assume the repository state is already set up correctly; default base is `main`.

## Collect Repository Context

Run the following to gather all review artifacts into temp files: