reviewer_ask

Ask (codebase Q&A)

Answer a free-text question about the codebase with a grounded response: every claim is backed by a real path:line citation, never an invented path. Built on the reviewer MCP server (hybrid RAG + code graph). This skill reads and explains; it does NOT modify code or review PRs.

Always answer the user in Russian (the project language), regardless of this file's language. Tool calls, code identifiers, and path:line citations stay verbatim.

Inputs

$ARGUMENTS — a free-text question about the code (e.g. "where is authentication", "how does index freshness work", "explain the retrieval pipeline").

Tools

Use the session-less tools above.

Plus the harness file tools (Read, Grep, Glob) to read source from the local clone on disk.

Pipeline

1. Resolve repo/branch.
   • repo: git remote get-url origin → strip a trailing .git, take the last two path segments (owner/name). Pass "" to let the server use DEFAULT_REPO if origin is missing.
   • branch:

Freshness check (first code question of the session only). After resolving repo/branch and ONLY on the first code question in this conversation — rely on conversation memory: if you have already checked index freshness earlier in this session, skip this — run uvx --from rag-reviewer reviewer status <path> --branch <branch> --json and read drift. If drift > 0, emit exactly one banner line, in Russian: «⚠ индекс отстаёт на N коммитов, ответ может не учитывать свежие изменения → /reviewer_sync-codebase». Do NOT block, reindex, ask for confirmation, or call sync_board — this is warn-only. Cost ≈ 0 Voyage (reads index_meta + local git). Fail-open: any error → skip the banner silently (Q&A is latency-sensitive).

1.5. Subsystem prior (cheap, optional). Call get_subsystem_summaries(repo, branch, query="<the user's question>"). At scale (summary count above the deploy threshold) this returns the top-k subsystems nearest the question; on small repos it returns all (back-compat). If it returns summaries, use the one matching the question's subsystem as a high-level orientation before search_codebase — this cuts exploration steps for architectural / "how does subsystem X work" questions. The summary is only a prior: every path:line you cite in the answer still comes from real code (search_codebase / Read), never from the summary text. Fail-open: empty / unavailable → skip this step and proceed exactly as before.

2. Search. Call search_codebase(repo, "<question>", branch=…). Parse the path#fqn (path:start-end) headers to get candidate symbols (node_id) and line ranges. If the result is (ничего не найдено), go to Fallback.

   Lazy expansion (no user prompt). If the output ends with a cliff/rails note reporting a high-scoring tail beyond the cut AND the question looks broad, you MAY re-call search_codebase once with a higher ceiling (pass top_k=<bigger>), then merge. Do this silently — never pause to ask the user.

3. Expand (only as needed). For an architectural / "how does X work" question, DEFAULT to skipping the graph tools (related_symbols / callers / definition) — the hybrid search usually suffices; CLAUDE.md / README are cheap priors to consult first. Only when the answer genuinely needs call relationships, for the symbols most relevant to the question, call related_symbols / callers / definition to follow the graph. Do NOT expand everything — only what the answer requires. Stop once you can answer.

4. Confirm source. search_codebase snippets are line-numbered, so when the returned snippet already shows the exact code you cite, you may cite path:line directly from the tool output — a separate Read is not required for grounding. Use Read only when the snippet was truncated ([...truncated]) or you need surrounding context. Never cite a path:line not present in any tool output.

5. Answer (adaptive), in Russian.

   • Default (focused question): a direct answer in 2–4 sentences, then an Evidence list — each item path:line + a one-line "why this is relevant".
   • Broad question ("explain subsystem X"): expand into sections — Краткий ответ / Ключевые символы / Поток / Связанные места — each claim still carrying a confirmed path:line.

Grounding contract (hard rule)

Cite ONLY paths that were returned by a tool AND confirmed by the tool's line-numbered output or a Read. Never invent or guess a path or line number. If you cannot ground a statement, say so explicitly instead of fabricating a citation. This is the skill's acceptance criterion.

A line-numbered search_codebase snippet that contains the cited code counts as grounding — an extra Read of the same lines is redundant.

Fallback (fail-open)

If the reviewer MCP server is unreachable or returns (ничего не найдено) / (граф недоступен) (Postgres/Neo4j/index down), degrade gracefully:

• Use the harness Grep/Glob/Read over the local clone to locate and confirm code.
• Tell the user (in Russian) that semantic/graph search was unavailable and the answer comes from a lexical search, so it may be less complete. Never abort — always return the best grounded answer you can.

Notes

• Precondition: the base index + graph must be built (reviewer index). Graph precision depends on the backend: SCIP → IMPLEMENTS + accurate CALLS; tree-sitter → CALLS by name only.
• Read-only: this skill never edits code and never posts to GitHub. Posting a human-facing review guide to a PR is a separate skill (PRI-119).