jitx-code-review

JITX Code Review

Task-level architectural self-review for JITX Python code just written in the current workspace. The reviewer agent reads the code with a checklist-bound, evidence-anchored framing — different from the framing under which the code was written — which is what catches what the in-session author rationalized as fine.

This skill is the per-task same-model pre-pass in the Think Twice flow (see jitx/references/task-execution.md Part A Step 4 and jitx/references/outside-voice-review.md "Same-model passes precede codex"). It catches architectural and code-craft smells (string-hacking, parallel models, naming hygiene). Codex outside-voice — which runs only for trigger-list task classes (MCU/FPGA, RF, power, safety, high-speed digital, battery) — catches the JITX-engineering-domain issues (datasheet-vs-code, impedance/return-path, voltage-divider math).

Phase 3b's same-model pre-pass is the four-pass design audit (not this skill) — see jitx/references/completion-blocks.md "Phase 3b Design Audit Block". By the time Phase 3b runs, every Phase 1/2/3 task has already passed its per-task jitx-code-review and the findings live in the task acceptance blocks.

When this skill runs

• Mandatory for every accepted task in complete-board tier. The jitx base skill invokes this at the Think Twice step in task-execution.md Part A Step 4 (before the orchestrator's acceptance review). The task acceptance block's JITX code review (self): field carries the finding count + disposition; missing or not run defaults to block.
• User-invoked for single-task tier. A user who wants self-critique on their single-skill work invokes this directly ("review my JITX code"). Each subskill's SKILL.md mentions the option but does not auto-trigger.
• Not a replacement for codex outside-voice. Codex still runs at Phase 3b (mandatory complete-board) and per-task for the trigger list (MCU/FPGA, RF, power converter, safety, high-speed digital, battery — see jitx/references/outside-voice-review.md).

Inputs the review takes

1. The code under review. Default: the workspace's <ns>/ directory (everything just written for the current task). The orchestrator may scope tighter (single file) when invoking from Think Twice.
2. The task acceptance block draft (if running mid-Think-Twice). Tells the reviewer what was supposed to be built and what evidence the author cites.
3. The relevant rule sources. Read at review time:
   • jitx/SKILL.md Don'ts (always)
   • jitx/references/architectural-patterns.md (always — this is the worked-counter-example source for the dominant failure modes)
   • Subskill SKILL.mds for the work in scope (component-modeler if a component file changed, etc.)
   • jitx-code-review/references/checklist.md (the pattern index over the architecture doctrine)

The review is evidence-anchored: every finding cites file:line and quotes a rule sentence (from SKILL.md or a reference file). Findings without a citation are downgraded to NOTE.

Workflow

1. Identify the scope. Files / directories under review. Default <ns>/, but a scoped run can target a single file.
2. Read the rule sources above. The point of reading them in-skill is so the reviewer cites verbatim — not paraphrases.
3. Walk the pattern checklist (references/checklist.md). For each pattern, look for instances; for each instance, capture severity and citation.
4. Apply the architectural pass (jitx/references/architectural-patterns.md). The dominant failure modes are encoded there as worked counter-examples (Bad/Good + rationale); check each one against the code under review.
5. Apply the ownership test to every banned-pattern hit or proposed exception (see "Ownership test" below). The pattern checklist names patterns; the ownership test catches the framework-boundary-bypass failure where the AI rationalizes a banned pattern as "OK because the framework does it."
6. Emit the findings block in the format below.
7. Hand back to the caller (orchestrator in Think Twice, or user for single-task). The orchestrator folds findings into the task acceptance block; the user decides whether to fix or accept-with-rationale.

The skill does not modify code. Findings → caller → fix decision → next iteration.

Ownership test (mandatory for every banned-pattern hit or proposed exception)

When the code uses a banned pattern (getattr, type(...), _protected_method(), etc.), or when the agent/author proposes a carve-out ("this getattr is OK because…", "this is the boundary call into the framework…"), the reviewer must answer four questions before accepting the carve-out:

1. What object owns the invariant the code is navigating? (A numbering scheme, a layer-to-via map, a protocol pin assignment, etc.)
2. Is this code inside that object's class or a subclass of it? If yes, the same-class exception applies and the pattern is legitimately allowed (carve-out is real). If no, see step 3.
3. Is the caller using a public method on the owning object? If yes, that's the right shape — no banned-pattern use needed. If no, see step 4.
4. If no public method exists, can a subclass adapter expose one? If yes, that's the fix — add a public method on the subclass that delegates to the framework's protected method (the "method calling another method on the same class" carve-out of the no-leading-underscore-from-elsewhere rule). All design-side callers go through the adapter.

If the answer is "outside the owner, copying internals" or "wrapping the banned pattern in a helper to make it look like one boundary call," classify the finding as framework-boundary-bypass (see references/checklist.md) and recommend the subclass-adapter fix.

This step exists because rule text alone wasn't sufficient: in a real review, the AI followed the no-getattr rule literally (one wrapped getattr call) but missed the rule's intent (don't replicate framework internals in design code) and produced a design coupled to a numbering scheme that the reviewer caught.

Severity scheme

Same vocabulary as outside-voice-review.md for consistency:

• CRITICAL — code clearly violates a rule, or contains a pattern that's named as illegal in jitx/SKILL.md Don'ts or architectural-patterns.md. Must be fixed before the task can be accepted. Examples: getattr(self, f"..."), module-level loop populating a global dict, design file with _SIGNAL_LAYER_TO_VIA that duplicates the substrate.
• WARNING — looks like the failure pattern but has ambiguity (e.g., a list[dict] that might be a legitimate parameter-staging pattern, an f"X_{i}" that might be a log message). Each WARNING needs a disposition: fix or accept with rationale: <why>.
• NOTE — observation worth recording but not blocking. Code-craft hygiene that's better-done-otherwise (vestigial from __future__ import annotations, named constant used exactly once, suboptimal naming).

Combined with the codex outside-voice precedence rule: any CRITICAL or WARNING finding here changes the combined verdict to issues-pending even if codex says clean. Same rule, two same-tier reviewers.

Output format

## JITX code review — <scope, e.g., <ns>/circuits/<circuit>.py>

**Reviewer:** jitx-code-review (same-model self-critique)
**Scope:** <list of files reviewed, with revision/commit if relevant>
**Rule sources read:** jitx/SKILL.md, jitx/references/architectural-patterns.md, <subskill SKILL.mds if relevant>

### CRITICAL

- **<pattern tag>** at `<file>:<line>` — <one-line description>. Rule: "<verbatim quote>" (from <source>). Disposition required.
- ...

### WARNING

- **<pattern tag>** at `<file>:<line>` — <one-line description>. <Why this might be the failure mode vs. legitimate use.> Disposition: fix | accept with rationale: <why>.
- ...

### NOTE

- **<pattern tag>** at `<file>:<line>` — <one-line description>.
- ...

### Summary

CRITICAL: <count> | WARNING: <count> | NOTE: <count>

The <pattern tag> is from the checklist (e.g., string-keyed-model, reflection-as-iteration, owner-shaped-data-misplaced, parallel-data-model). Pattern tags are orthogonal to severity — a single pattern can produce CRITICAL or WARNING findings depending on the specific instance.

What this skill is NOT

• Not a cross-repo audit tool. This skill is in-workspace and same-model only — it reviews the code just written here, not a remote codebase against external documentation.
• Not a replacement for static analysis. pyright and ruff check still run as part of the task acceptance block. They catch type / lint issues; this skill catches architectural smells they can't see.
• Not a build verifier. jitx build still runs. This skill is purely a code-quality pass.

Compliance-theater watch

The skill can become ritual if the reviewer agent passes everything as clean without doing the work. Concrete signals the orchestrator should treat as suspicious:

• CRITICAL: 0 | WARNING: 0 | NOTE: 0 on a parametric / generator task where the architectural patterns are likely to surface.
• Findings without file:line citations or rule quotes.
• All findings tagged NOTE when the pattern checklist named CRITICAL-eligible patterns.
• Bulk dispositions (all accepted, all framework code) on review-required grep-gate hits — each hit needs a per-line rationale.
• A prior finding marked fix/resolved/accepted with no cited evidence — no fix commit or file:line showing the change, and no stated acceptance rationale. "Resolved" with neither is the author-side form of compliance theater (e.g. a reviewer reopening a thread marked resolved with "not sure what the resolution is"). A resolved disposition must point at the diff that resolved it or say why it's accepted as-is.

A valid review output should let a reader open the cited file at the cited line and verify the finding in under a minute.