Micro Harsh Review

---
name: micro-harsh-review
source: superpowers-plus
disable-model-invocation: true
triggers:
  - "review this change"
  - "review this code"
  - "micro harsh review"
  - "micro review"
  - "code quality check"
aliases: [MHR]
anti_triggers:
  - "PR review"
  - "pull request review"
  - "full code review"
description: "Per-batch adversarial review for ANY code change. 3 critic personas score on 5 dimensions each. Score <8 average = REJECT + rework. Faster than full review, more rigorous than lint."
summary: "Use when: any code change before commit. Skip when: docs-only."
coordination:
  group: code-quality
  order: 1
  requires: []
  enables: [pre-commit-gate]
  escalates_to: [progressive-code-review-gate]
  internal: false
composition:
  consumes: [code-changes]
  produces: [review-feedback]
  capabilities: [reviews-code, gates-quality]
  priority: 30
---

# Micro Harsh Review

> **Wrong skill?** Full PR -> progressive-code-review-gate. Non-code -> progressive-harsh-review. Style -> enforce-style-guide.

**Announce at start:** "I am using the **micro-harsh-review** skill to review this change."

## When to Use

- Before committing ANY code change (even 1 function)
- After modifying logic, not just formatting
- Before pushing to shared branch
- When editing router patterns or gate thresholds

### Example

```bash
# Example: 3-critic scoring
echo "=== Micro Harsh Review: router pattern change ==="
echo "Critic 1 (Nitpick):  8/10 - case sensitivity concern"
echo "Critic 2 (Arch):     9/10 - minimal scope, pattern-local"
echo "Critic 3 (Prod):     7/10 - no collision test added"
echo "Average: 8.0 -> PASS (conditional: add collision test)"
```

## 3-Critic Protocol

### Critic 1: NitpickLineByLine

**Full access.** START FROM the local diff. PRIORITIZE line-by-line syntax, naming, and surface-level correctness.

| Check | Score /10 | Notes |
|-------|-----------|-------|
| Off-by-one | | |
| Null handling | | |
| String comparison | | |
| Error messages | | |
| Variable naming | | |

### Critic 2: ArchSoundnessProbe

**Full access.** START FROM interface contracts and public APIs. PRIORITIZE ripple analysis across callers and downstream consumers.

Respects patterns? /10 . Downstream impact? /10 . Minimal scope? /10 . 10x load? /10 . Reversible? /10

### Critic 3: ProdBattleTest

**Full access.** START FROM failure modes and state transitions. PRIORITIZE error handling, retry/rollback logic, and 3 AM operational safety.

Edge cases? /10 . Failure mode? /10 . Logging? /10 . Backward compat? /10 . Ship at 3 AM? /10

---

## Scoring

Average = (Nitpick + Arch + Prod) / 3

- >= 8.0 -> PASS
- >= 6.0 -> CONDITIONAL — fix flagged, re-review
- < 6.0 -> REJECT -> think-twice -> redo

---

## Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Detection | Correction |
|--------------|-----------|------------|
| Rubber-stamp | All scores 9-10, no notes | Find >=1 concern per critic |
| Inflated scores | Average > 9.0 consistently | Recalibrate with known-bad code |
| Critics agree | Same findings across all 3 | Force second-order critique: each must name ≥1 failure mode or cite a specific property of the change explaining why none exists (generic "it's straightforward" = rubber-stamp) |
| Review > coding time | >15 min for <20 lines | Top 3 risks only |

## Failure Modes

| Failure | Detection | Recovery |
|---------|-----------|----------|
| Rubber-stamp (all 10s) | No notes | Find >=1 concern per critic |
| Review > change time | >15 min for <20 lines | Top 3 risks only |
| Critics agree on everything | Same findings | Force second-order critique: name ≥1 plausible failure mode or cite specific change property explaining why none exists |
| Score inflation | Average > 9.0 consistently | Recalibrate with bad code |

## Companion Skills

- **progressive-code-review-gate**: Full PR review (heavier)
- **pre-commit-gate**: Pre-commit (lighter, automated)
- **enforce-style-guide**: Style enforcement
- **think-twice**: Deeper problem revealed
- **failure-autopsy**: Reviewed code fails later