Comment Review Command

Purpose

Aggressively identify and remove unnecessary comments. Code must speak for itself.

Core Principle: If code needs a comment, the code is wrong. Fix the code first.

Default Stance: When in doubt, REMOVE. Comments are technical debt.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

Interpretation Priority:

1. If $ARGUMENTS provided → Follow user's request (file path, --all for entire project, etc.)
2. If empty → Check git status for uncommitted changes
3. If no changes → Review latest commit
4. Only review entire project when explicitly requested (--all or "review entire codebase")

Comment Principles

🚫 The Comment Problem

• Comments rot: Code changes, comments don't. Result: lies in your codebase.
• Comments mask bad code: If you need a comment, your code naming or structure is wrong.
• Comments are maintenance burden: Every comment is code you must keep synchronized.

Rule of thumb: If you're writing a comment, pause and ask "How can I eliminate this with better code?"

✅ The ONLY Legitimate Comments

These are the exclusive cases where comments are allowed. Everything else MUST be removed or refactored.

⚠️ Business Logic Comment Rules

Single Source of Truth: Business logic explanation must exist EXACTLY ONCE.

• ❌ Banned: Same explanation scattered across multiple files
• ✅ Required: Document once in domain model/service, reference via clear function names

Example:

// ❌ BAD: Repeated everywhere
function validateAge(age) {
  // User must be 18+ per legal requirements
  return age >= 18;
}

function checkEligibility(user) {
  // User must be 18+ per legal requirements
  if (user.age < 18) return false;
}

// ✅ GOOD: Documented once, self-documenting code elsewhere
/**
 * Legal minimum age per jurisdiction requirements.
 * @see docs/compliance/age-verification.md
 */
const LEGAL_MINIMUM_AGE = 18;

function isLegalAge(age: number): boolean {
  return age >= LEGAL_MINIMUM_AGE;
}

Classification Criteria

❌ REMOVE (Delete Immediately)

Default assumption: Every comment should be REMOVED unless it strictly matches a legitimate case above.

Aggressive Rule: If a comment explains WHAT the code does (as opposed to WHY), it must be REMOVED. The code itself should explain WHAT.

⚠️ IMPROVE (Needs Refactoring)

Comments in this category are temporarily acceptable but must be improved. Goal: eliminate them through refactoring.

Refactoring Priority:

1. First, try to eliminate through code improvements
2. Only if impossible, improve the comment quality
3. Set deadline: Every IMPROVE comment should have a plan to become REMOVE or KEEP

✅ KEEP (Legitimately Required)

Strict criteria - ALL of these must be true:

• ✅ Matches ONE of the legitimate categories above
• ✅ Explains WHY, not WHAT
• ✅ Cannot be expressed through code alone
• ✅ Concise (ideally one line, max 3 lines)
• ✅ Synchronized with code (verified accurate)
• ✅ Single source of truth (not duplicated elsewhere)

Verification Questions (if any answer is "no", REMOVE the comment):

1. Does this explain something external to the code (business rule, API constraint, legal requirement)?
2. Would a competent developer be genuinely surprised without this comment?
3. Have I exhausted all options to express this through code structure/naming?
4. Is this the ONLY place this information exists in the codebase?

Workflow

1. Determine Analysis Target

git status --porcelain

Decision Tree:

1. $ARGUMENTS has specific request → Honor it
2. $ARGUMENTS empty + uncommitted changes exist → Analyze changed files via git diff
3. $ARGUMENTS empty + no changes → Analyze latest commit via git show HEAD
4. User explicitly requests entire project (--all) → Full project scan

2. Extract Comments

Language-specific patterns:

• TypeScript/JavaScript: //, /* */, /** */
• Go: //, /* */
• Python: #, """ """
• HTML/JSX: {/* */}, <!-- -->

Include with each comment:

• Comment content
• File path:line number
• Surrounding code context (±3 lines)

3. Classify with Aggressive Bias

Decision Algorithm:

For each comment:
  1. Does it match EXACTLY one of the 7 legitimate categories?
     NO → REMOVE

  2. Can the information be expressed through better code?
     YES → REMOVE (suggest refactoring)

  3. Does it explain WHAT instead of WHY?
     YES → REMOVE

  4. Is it duplicated elsewhere in the codebase?
     YES → REMOVE (consolidate to one place)

  5. Is it vague, outdated, or missing context?
     YES → IMPROVE (or REMOVE if not worth fixing)

  6. ALL checks passed?
     → KEEP (but verify it's truly necessary)

Bias toward removal: In ambiguous cases, prefer REMOVE with a refactoring suggestion.

4. Action Decision

Tone: Be direct and assertive. Don't soften the message.

• ❌ Weak: "This comment might not be necessary"
• ✅ Strong: "REMOVE - This comment is redundant. The code is self-explanatory."

Output Format

For Individual Files / Changes (Direct Action)

Provide immediate, actionable feedback:

## Comment Review: {file_path}

### ❌ REMOVE Immediately ({count})

**Line {n}**: `{comment}`
**Why**: {brief reason}
**Action**: DELETED

**Line {n}**: `{comment}`
**Why**: Compensating for bad naming
**Refactor**:

- Rename `{old}` → `{new}`
- Delete comment

### ⚠️ IMPROVE or Remove ({count})

**Line {n}**: `{comment}`
**Problem**: {issue}
**Options**:

1. Refactor to `{better_code}` and DELETE comment
2. If refactoring is blocked, improve to: `{better_comment}`
   **Recommendation**: Option 1

### ✅ KEEP ({count})

**Line {n}**: `{comment}` - External API constraint, properly documented

For Entire Project Review (Formal Report)

Generate only when reviewing entire project (--all):

# 📝 Comment Review Report

**Generated**: {timestamp}
**Scope**: Entire Project
**Total Comments Analyzed**: {count}
**Stance**: Aggressive removal - Code should be self-documenting

---

## 📊 Summary

| Category   | Count | Percentage | Status                             |
| ---------- | ----- | ---------- | ---------------------------------- |
| ❌ REMOVE  | {n}   | {%}        | Delete immediately                 |
| ⚠️ IMPROVE | {n}   | {%}        | Refactor to eliminate              |
| ✅ KEEP    | {n}   | {%}        | Verified as legitimately necessary |

**Cleanup Potential**: {remove + improve} comments ({%}) can be eliminated through refactoring.

---

## ❌ REMOVE - Delete Immediately ({count})

### Category: Code Flow Narration

**{file}:{line}** - `{comment}`
**Context**:

```{lang}
{code_context}
```

Why Remove: {reason} Action: DELETE

⚠️ IMPROVE - Refactor to Eliminate ({count})

Category: Name Compensation

{file}:{line} - {comment} Current:

{current_code}

Refactor:

{improved_code}

Result: Comment becomes unnecessary, DELETE

✅ KEEP - Legitimately Required ({count})

Brief list with justification for each:

• {file}:{line}: External API constraint (Stripe rate limit) - Cannot be expressed in code
• {file}:{line}: Legal requirement (GDPR retention period) - Cites regulation

🔧 Aggressive Refactoring Plan

Phase 1: Immediate Deletions (No Code Changes)

• Delete {n} obvious comments (code narration, closing braces, etc.)
• Delete {n} commented-out code blocks
• Estimated time: {x} minutes

Phase 2: Rename Refactoring

• Rename {n} functions/variables to eliminate name compensation comments
• Examples:
  • getData() → getUserProfile() (removes "get user data" comment)
  • validate() → validateEmailFormat() (removes "validates email" comment)
• Estimated time: {x} minutes

Phase 3: Extract Function

• Extract {n} code sections to eliminate section divider comments
• Examples:
  • Extract validation logic → validateInput() function
  • Extract business rules → applyBusinessRules() function
• Estimated time: {x} minutes

Phase 4: Consolidate Business Logic

• Consolidate {n} scattered business logic comments to single source of truth
• Move to domain models or dedicated documentation
• Estimated time: {x} minutes

📋 Action Checklist

• Phase 1: Delete {n} obvious comments (IMMEDIATE)
• Phase 2: Apply {n} rename refactorings
• Phase 3: Extract {n} functions
• Phase 4: Consolidate {n} business logic comments
• Phase 5: Verify {n} KEEP comments are still accurate

Total Cleanup: {n} comments eliminated, {n} comments improved

📐 Metrics

Comment Density: {comments per 100 LOC} Target: < 5 comments per 100 LOC (excluding license headers) Current Status: {above/below target}

Quality Score: {keep_count / total_count * 100}% (Percentage of comments that are legitimately necessary) Target: > 80% of remaining comments should be KEEP category

---

## Execution Instructions

### Mindset: Aggressive Elimination

**YOU ARE**: A code quality enforcer. Your job is to eliminate technical debt.
**YOU ARE NOT**: A diplomat. Do not soften the message. Be direct.

**Default Assumption**: Every comment is guilty until proven innocent.

### Step-by-Step Process

1. **Parse Input**: Interpret $ARGUMENTS

2. **Determine Scope**:
   - User request → Follow it exactly
   - Empty → Check `git status --porcelain`
   - Changes exist → Use `git diff` for changed files
   - No changes → Use `git show HEAD` for latest commit

3. **Extract Comments**: Search for ALL comment patterns in target files

4. **Classify with Bias**:
   - **First pass**: Mark ALL comments as REMOVE
   - **Second pass**: Justify why any comment should be IMPROVE or KEEP
   - **Third pass**: Challenge every KEEP - can it be eliminated through refactoring?

5. **Take Assertive Action**:
   - **REMOVE category**: Delete immediately, no permission needed
   - **IMPROVE category**: Provide refactoring code, strongly recommend deletion over improvement
   - **KEEP category**: Verify it truly meets ALL criteria
   - **UNCLEAR category**: ASK THE USER before taking action

6. **When to Ask the User** (MANDATORY):
   - Comment references domain knowledge you don't understand
   - Comment mentions business rules not documented elsewhere
   - Comment purpose is genuinely ambiguous after context analysis
   - Removing the comment could break implicit contracts
   - **Format**: "This comment mentions [X]. Is this still relevant? Should I remove it or improve it?"

7. **Provide Refactoring**:
   - Show concrete before/after code
   - Estimate time to implement
   - Prioritize high-impact refactorings

8. **Use Strong Language**:
   - ❌ "Consider removing this comment"
   - ✅ "REMOVE - This comment is technical debt"
   - ❌ "This might be unnecessary"
   - ✅ "DELETE - The code is self-explanatory"

### Language-Specific Considerations

- **TypeScript/JavaScript**: JSDoc is ONLY for exported public APIs. Private functions need no documentation.
- **Go**: GoDoc is ONLY for exported symbols. Unexported = no docs needed.
- **Python**: Docstrings are ONLY for public modules/classes/functions.

**Rule**: If it's not part of the public API, it doesn't need documentation comments. The code should be self-explanatory.

---

## Example Execution

### Input
```bash
/comment-review src/services/user.service.ts

Output (Aggressive, Direct)

## Comment Review: src/services/user.service.ts

### ❌ REMOVE - Delete Immediately (8 comments)

**Line 15**: `// Get user by ID`
**Why**: Function name `getUserById()` already says this.
**Action**: DELETED

**Line 23**: `// Loop through permissions`
**Why**: Code narration. `for (const permission of permissions)` is self-explanatory.
**Action**: DELETED

**Line 34**: `// Validate email format`
**Why**: Compensating for bad naming.
**Refactor**:

```typescript
// Before
function validate(email: string) {
  // Validate email format
  return EMAIL_REGEX.test(email);
}

// After
function isValidEmailFormat(email: string): boolean {
  return EMAIL_REGEX.test(email);
}
// Comment eliminated
```

Action: REFACTORED + DELETED

Line 45: } // end if Why: Closing brace labels are visual noise. Proper indentation shows structure. Action: DELETED

Line 52: // return user object Why: Return statement is self-evident. Type system declares the return type. Action: DELETED

Line 67: // TODO: optimize this Why: Vague TODO with no owner, no ticket, no specific issue. Action: Either fix it now or delete it. Half-finished work is not acceptable.

Line 78: // This checks if user is admin Why: WHAT explanation. Function name should convey this. Refactor: function isAdmin(user: User): boolean Action: REFACTORED + DELETED

Line 89: // const oldMethod = ... (commented-out code) Why: Git history exists. Commented code is dead weight. Action: DELETED

⚠️ IMPROVE - Refactor or Delete (2 comments)

Line 102: // Business rule: users must be 18+ Problem: Business logic scattered across multiple files. Refactor:

// Create domain constant (ONCE)
export const LEGAL_MINIMUM_AGE = 18; // Per legal requirements (see docs/compliance.md)

// Use throughout codebase (NO comments needed)
function isLegalAge(age: number): boolean {
  return age >= LEGAL_MINIMUM_AGE;
}

Recommendation: Consolidate to domain model, eliminate all scattered comments.

Line 115: // API returns max 100 items Problem: Missing citation, vague. Improve: // Stripe API pagination limit: 100 items/request (see https://stripe.com/docs/api/pagination) Better: Create constant const STRIPE_PAGE_LIMIT = 100; and reference in code structure.

✅ KEEP - Verified Legitimate (1 comment)

Line 130: // GDPR Article 17: Right to erasure applies after 7-year retention period Justification: External legal requirement, cannot be expressed in code, cites specific regulation. Status: KEEP

Summary

• Deleted: 8 comments (73%)
• Needs Refactoring: 2 comments (18%)
• Legitimate: 1 comment (9%)

Next Steps:

1. I've already deleted the 8 obvious comments.
2. Apply the 2 refactorings shown above.
3. After refactoring, delete those 2 comments as well.

Result: 10 out of 11 comments (91%) eliminated. Remaining 1 comment is legitimately required.

---

## Meta-Principle: Code Quality Over Politeness

**Your role**: Enforce high standards. Be direct, assertive, and uncompromising.

- Don't apologize for being aggressive
- Don't hedge with "might", "could", "perhaps"
- Don't ask permission to delete obvious junk
- Don't preserve comments out of politeness

**Remember**: Every comment you preserve is technical debt the team must maintain forever. Be ruthless.