Review Tui

Comprehensive BubbleTea TUI code review for terminal applications. Use when reviewing charmbracelet/bubbletea, lipgloss, bubbles, or Wish SSH code; optionally reviews each area concurrently.

TUI Code Review

Arguments

• --parallel: Review each technology area concurrently if the agent supports it (see Step 6)
• Path: Target directory (default: current working directory)

Gates (sequence)

Advance only when each pass condition is true (reduces scope drift and unsubstantiated blocking claims):

Gate	Pass condition
G1 — Scope	Step 1 produced a concrete list of target .go paths (from the git command or an explicit user path). If the list is empty, you stopped for scope clarification or recorded an agreed non-git scope (e.g. single file/dir) before reviewing.
G2 — Skills before review	review-verification-protocol, go-code-review, and bubbletea-code-review are loaded; Step 4 conditionals (tests → go-testing-code-review, Wish → wish-ssh-code-review) are loaded before Step 5.
G3 — Evidence for Critical/Major	Each Critical/Major finding cites file path + line (or a short quoted snippet) from the opened source—not from diff hunks alone.
G4 — Pre-output hygiene	Each retained finding was checked against Step 7 and the loaded verification protocol before writing the Issues section.

Do not start Step 5 until G2 passes. Do not publish Critical/Major until G3 and G4 pass.

Step 1: Identify Changed Files

bash

git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '\.go$'

Step 2: Detect Technologies

bash

# Detect BubbleTea (required for TUI review)
grep -r "charmbracelet/bubbletea" --include="*.go" -l | head -3

# Detect Lipgloss styling
grep -r "charmbracelet/lipgloss\|lipgloss\.Style" --include="*.go" -l | head -3

# Detect Bubbles components
grep -r "charmbracelet/bubbles\|list\.Model\|textinput\.Model\|viewport\.Model" --include="*.go" -l | head -3

# Detect Wish SSH server
grep -r "charmbracelet/wish\|ssh\.Session" --include="*.go" -l | head -3

# Check for test files
git diff --name-only $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD | grep -E '_test\.go$'

Step 3: Load Verification Protocol

Load the review-verification-protocol skill and keep its checklist in mind throughout the review.

Step 4: Load Skills

Load each applicable skill below (open its SKILL.md and follow it).

Always load:

• go-code-review
• bubbletea-code-review

Conditionally load based on detection:

Condition	Skill
Test files changed	go-testing-code-review
Wish SSH detected	wish-ssh-code-review

Step 5: Review Focus Areas

Model/Update/View (Elm Architecture)

• Model is immutable (Update returns new model)
• Init returns proper initial command
• Update handles all message types
• View is pure function (no side effects)
• tea.Quit used correctly for exit

Lipgloss Styling

• Styles defined once at package level
• Styles not created in View function
• Colors use AdaptiveColor for light/dark themes
• Layout responds to WindowSizeMsg

Component Composition

• Sub-component updates propagated
• WindowSizeMsg passed to resizable components
• Focus management for multiple components
• Clear state machine for view transitions

SSH Server (if applicable)

• Host keys persisted
• Graceful shutdown implemented
• PTY window size passed to TUI
• Per-session Lipgloss renderer

Step 6: Review

If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one per technology area in parallel; otherwise run the areas sequentially. Either path produces identical output.

Sequential (default, and the fallback when subagents are unavailable):

1. Load applicable skills
2. Review Go code quality
3. Review BubbleTea patterns (Model/Update/View)
4. Review Lipgloss styling
5. Review component composition
6. Review SSH server (if applicable)
7. Consolidate findings

Parallel (--parallel, only if the agent supports subagents):

1. Detect all technologies upfront
2. Dispatch one subagent each for: Go quality, BubbleTea, SSH
3. Wait for all subagents
4. Consolidate findings

Step 7: Verify Findings

Before reporting any issue:

1. Re-read the actual code (not just diff context)
2. For "unused" claims - did you search all references?
3. For "missing" claims - did you check framework/parent handling?
4. For syntax issues - did you verify against current version docs?
5. Remove any findings that are style preferences, not actual issues

Step 8: Review Convergence

Single-Pass Completeness

You MUST report ALL issues across ALL categories (style, logic, types, tests, security, performance) in a single review pass. Do not hold back issues for later rounds.

Before submitting findings, ask yourself:

• "If all my recommended fixes are applied, will I find NEW issues in the fixed code?"
• "Am I requesting new code (tests, types, modules) that will itself need review?"

If yes to either: include those anticipated downstream issues NOW, in this review, so the author can address everything at once.

Scope Rules

• Review ONLY the code in the diff and directly related existing code
• Do NOT request new features, test infrastructure, or architectural changes that didn't exist before the diff
• If test coverage is missing, flag it as ONE Minor issue ("Missing test coverage for X, Y, Z") — do NOT specify implementation details like mock libraries, behaviour extraction, or dependency injection patterns that would introduce substantial new code
• Typespecs, documentation, and naming issues are Minor unless they affect public API contracts
• Do NOT request adding new dependencies (e.g. Mox, testing libraries, linter plugins)

Fix Complexity Budget

Fixes to existing code should be flagged at their real severity regardless of size.

However, requests for net-new code that didn't exist before the diff must be classified as Informational:

• Adding a new dependency (e.g. Mox, a linter plugin)
• Creating entirely new modules, files, or test suites
• Extracting new behaviours, protocols, or abstractions

These are improvement suggestions for the author to consider in future work, not review blockers.

Iteration Policy

If this is a re-review after fixes were applied:

• ONLY verify that previously flagged issues were addressed correctly
• Do NOT introduce new findings unrelated to the previous review's issues
• Accept Minor/Nice-to-Have issues that weren't fixed — do not re-flag them
• The goal of re-review is VERIFICATION, not discovery

Output Format

markdown

## Review Summary

[1-2 sentence overview of findings]

## Issues

### Critical (Blocking)

1. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: Description of what's wrong
   - Why: Why this matters (UI freeze, crash, resource leak)
   - Fix: Specific recommended fix

### Major (Should Fix)

2. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: ...
   - Why: ...
   - Fix: ...

### Minor (Nice to Have)

N. [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
   - Issue: ...
   - Why: ...
   - Fix: ...

### Informational (For Awareness)

N. [FILE:LINE] SUGGESTION_TITLE
   - Suggestion: ...
   - Rationale: ...

## Good Patterns

- [FILE:LINE] Pattern description (preserve this)

## Verdict

Ready: Yes | No | With fixes 1-N (Critical/Major only; Minor items are acceptable)
Rationale: [1-2 sentences]

Post-Fix Verification

After fixes are applied, run:

bash

go build ./...
go vet ./...
golangci-lint run
go test -v -race ./...

All checks must pass before approval.

Rules

• Load skills BEFORE reviewing (not after)
• Number every issue sequentially (1, 2, 3...)
• Include FILE:LINE for each issue
• Separate Issue/Why/Fix clearly
• Categorize by actual severity
• Pay special attention to:
  • Blocking operations in Update (freezes UI)
  • Style creation in View (performance)
  • Missing WindowSizeMsg handling (broken resize)
• Run verification after fixes
• Report ALL issues in a single pass — do not hold back findings for later iterations
• Re-reviews verify previous fixes ONLY — no new discovery
• Requests for net-new code (new modules, dependencies, test suites) are Informational, not blocking
• The Verdict ignores Minor and Informational items — only Critical and Major block approval