/review-work
Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must
$ npx -y skills add code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode --skill review-work --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/review-work
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must
SKILL.md
review-work.SKILL.mdname: review-work
description: "Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE after completing any significant implementation work. Triggers: 'review work', 'review my work', 'review changes', 'QA my work', 'verify implementation', 'check my work', 'validate changes', 'post-implementation review'."
Claude Code Harness Tool Compatibility
This skill may include examples copied from the OpenCode or Codex harness. In Claude Code, do not call OpenCode/Codex-only tools such as `task(...)`, `call_omo_agent(...)`, `spawn_agent(...)`, `background_output(...)`, `wait_agent(...)`, `team_*(...)`, `send_message(...)`, `followup_task(...)`, or `close_agent(...)` literally. Translate those examples to Claude Code native tools:
| OpenCode / Codex example | Claude Code tool to use | | --- | --- | | `task(subagent_type="explore", ...)` / `call_omo_agent(...)` / `spawn_agent(agent_type="explorer", ...)` | the `Task` tool (spawn a subagent of the matching type) | | `task(subagent_type="plan"/"oracle", ...)` / `spawn_agent(agent_type="plan"/"reviewer", ...)` | the `Task` tool with the planner/reviewer subagent, or the `Skill` tool | | `task(category="...", ...)` | the `Task` tool (general-purpose subagent) or run the work inline | | `background_output(...)` / `wait_agent(...)` | await the subagent's return value / the system completion notification | | `team_*(...)` / `send_message`/`followup_task`/`close_agent` | run multiple `Task` subagents and synthesize their results |
When translating `load_skills=[...]`, invoke the requested skills with the `Skill` tool or pass their names in the spawned subagent's prompt. If a code block below conflicts with this section, this section wins.
Review Work - 5-Agent Parallel Review Orchestrator
Launch 5 specialized sub-agents in parallel to review completed implementation work from every angle. All 5 must pass for the review to pass. If even ONE fails, the review fails.
The 5 agents cover complementary concerns - together they form a comprehensive review that no single reviewer could match:
| # | Agent | Type | Role | Focus Level | |---|-------|------|------|-------------| | 1 | Goal Verifier | Oracle | Did we build what was asked? | MAIN | | 2 | QA Executor | unspecified-high | Does it actually work? | MAIN | | 3 | Code Reviewer | Oracle | Is the code well-written? | MAIN | | 4 | Security Auditor | Oracle | Is it secure? | SUB | | 5 | Context Miner | unspecified-high | Did we miss any context? | MAIN |
---
Phase 0: Gather Review Context
Before launching agents, collect these inputs. Extract from conversation history first - the user's original request, constraints discussed, and decisions made are usually already in the thread. Only ask if truly missing.
<required_inputs>
- **GOAL**: The original objective. What was the user trying to achieve? Pull from the initial request in this conversation.
- **CONSTRAINTS**: Rules, requirements, or limitations. Tech stack restrictions, performance targets, API contracts, design patterns to follow, backward compatibility needs.
- **BACKGROUND**: Why this work was needed. Business context, user stories, related systems, prior decisions that informed the approach.
- **CHANGED_FILES**: Auto-collect via `git diff --name-only HEAD~1` or against the appropriate base (branch point, specific commit).
- **DIFF**: Auto-collect via `git diff HEAD~1` or against the appropriate base.
- **FILE_CONTENTS**: Read the full content of each changed file (not just the diff). Oracle agents cannot read files - they need full context in the prompt.
- **RUN_COMMAND**: How to start/run the application. Check `package.json` scripts, `Makefile`, `docker-compose.yml`, or ask the user.
</required_inputs>
**NEVER CHECKOUT A PR BRANCH IN THE MAIN WORKTREE. ALWAYS CREATE A NEW GIT WORKTREE (`git worktree add`) AND WORK THERE. THIS PREVENTS CONTAMINATING THE USER'S WORKING DIRECTORY WITH UNRELATED BRANCH STATE.**
**Auto-collection sequence:**
# 1. Get changed files
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only main...HEAD
# 2. Get diff
git diff HEAD~1 # or: git diff main...HEAD
# 3. Detect run command
# Check package.json -> "scripts.dev" or "scripts.start"
# Check Makefile -> default target
# Check docker-compose.yml -> services
For GOAL, CONSTRAINTS, BACKGROUND - review the full conversation history. The user's original message almost always contains the goal. Constraints often emerge during discussion. If anything critical is ambiguous, ask ONE focused question - not a checklist.
---
Phase 1: Launch 5 Agents
Launch ALL 5 in a single turn. Every agent uses `run_in_background=true`. No sequential launches. No waiting between them.
**Oracle agents receive everything in the prompt** (they cannot read files or run commands). Include DIFF + FILE_CONTENTS + all context directly in the prompt text.
**unspecified-high agents are autonomous** - they can read files, run commands, and use tools. Give them goals and pointers, not raw content dumps.
---
Agent 1: Goal & Constraint Verification (Oracle) - MAIN
This agent answers: "Did we build exactly what was asked, within the rules we were given?"
task(
subagent_type="oracle",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=[],
description="Verify implementation against original goal and constraints",
prompt="""
<review_type>GOAL & CONSTRAINT VERIFICATION</review_type>
<original_goal>
{GOAL - paste the user's original request and any clarifications}
</original_goal>
<constraints>
{CONSTRAINTS - every rule, requirement, or limitation discussed}
</constraints>
<background>
{BACKGROUND - why this work was needed, broader context}
</background>
<changed_files>
{CHANGED_FILES - list of modRead more
name: review-work description: "Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE after completing any significant implementation work. Triggers: 'review work', 'review my work', 'review changes', 'QA my work', 'verify implementation', 'check my work', 'validate changes', 'post-implementation review'."
Claude Code Harness Tool Compatibility
This skill may include examples copied from the OpenCode or Codex harness. In Claude Code, do not call OpenCode/Codex-only tools such as `task(...)`, `call_omo_agent(...)`, `spawn_agent(...)`, `background_output(...)`, `wait_agent(...)`, `team_*(...)`, `send_message(...)`, `followup_task(...)`, or `close_agent(...)` literally. Translate those examples to Claude Code native tools:
| OpenCode / Codex example | Claude Code tool to use | | --- | --- | | `task(subagent_type="explore", ...)` / `call_omo_agent(...)` / `spawn_agent(agent_type="explorer", ...)` | the `Task` tool (spawn a subagent of the matching type) | | `task(subagent_type="plan"/"oracle", ...)` / `spawn_agent(agent_type="plan"/"reviewer", ...)` | the `Task` tool with the planner/reviewer subagent, or the `Skill` tool | | `task(category="...", ...)` | the `Task` tool (general-purpose subagent) or run the work inline | | `background_output(...)` / `wait_agent(...)` | await the subagent's return value / the system completion notification | | `team_*(...)` / `send_message`/`followup_task`/`close_agent` | run multiple `Task` subagents and synthesize their results |
When translating `load_skills=[...]`, invoke the requested skills with the `Skill` tool or pass their names in the spawned subagent's prompt. If a code block below conflicts with this section, this section wins.
Review Work - 5-Agent Parallel Review Orchestrator
Launch 5 specialized sub-agents in parallel to review completed implementation work from every angle. All 5 must pass for the review to pass. If even ONE fails, the review fails.
The 5 agents cover complementary concerns - together they form a comprehensive review that no single reviewer could match:
| # | Agent | Type | Role | Focus Level | |---|-------|------|------|-------------| | 1 | Goal Verifier | Oracle | Did we build what was asked? | MAIN | | 2 | QA Executor | unspecified-high | Does it actually work? | MAIN | | 3 | Code Reviewer | Oracle | Is the code well-written? | MAIN | | 4 | Security Auditor | Oracle | Is it secure? | SUB | | 5 | Context Miner | unspecified-high | Did we miss any context? | MAIN |
---
Phase 0: Gather Review Context
Before launching agents, collect these inputs. Extract from conversation history first - the user's original request, constraints discussed, and decisions made are usually already in the thread. Only ask if truly missing.
<required_inputs>
- **GOAL**: The original objective. What was the user trying to achieve? Pull from the initial request in this conversation.
- **CONSTRAINTS**: Rules, requirements, or limitations. Tech stack restrictions, performance targets, API contracts, design patterns to follow, backward compatibility needs.
- **BACKGROUND**: Why this work was needed. Business context, user stories, related systems, prior decisions that informed the approach.
- **CHANGED_FILES**: Auto-collect via `git diff --name-only HEAD~1` or against the appropriate base (branch point, specific commit).
- **DIFF**: Auto-collect via `git diff HEAD~1` or against the appropriate base.
- **FILE_CONTENTS**: Read the full content of each changed file (not just the diff). Oracle agents cannot read files - they need full context in the prompt.
- **RUN_COMMAND**: How to start/run the application. Check `package.json` scripts, `Makefile`, `docker-compose.yml`, or ask the user.
</required_inputs>
**NEVER CHECKOUT A PR BRANCH IN THE MAIN WORKTREE. ALWAYS CREATE A NEW GIT WORKTREE (`git worktree add`) AND WORK THERE. THIS PREVENTS CONTAMINATING THE USER'S WORKING DIRECTORY WITH UNRELATED BRANCH STATE.**
**Auto-collection sequence:**
# 1. Get changed files git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only main...HEAD # 2. Get diff git diff HEAD~1 # or: git diff main...HEAD # 3. Detect run command # Check package.json -> "scripts.dev" or "scripts.start" # Check Makefile -> default target # Check docker-compose.yml -> services
For GOAL, CONSTRAINTS, BACKGROUND - review the full conversation history. The user's original message almost always contains the goal. Constraints often emerge during discussion. If anything critical is ambiguous, ask ONE focused question - not a checklist.
---
Phase 1: Launch 5 Agents
Launch ALL 5 in a single turn. Every agent uses `run_in_background=true`. No sequential launches. No waiting between them.
**Oracle agents receive everything in the prompt** (they cannot read files or run commands). Include DIFF + FILE_CONTENTS + all context directly in the prompt text.
**unspecified-high agents are autonomous** - they can read files, run commands, and use tools. Give them goals and pointers, not raw content dumps.
---
Agent 1: Goal & Constraint Verification (Oracle) - MAIN
This agent answers: "Did we build exactly what was asked, within the rules we were given?"
task(
subagent_type="oracle",
run_in_background=true,
load_skills=[],
description="Verify implementation against original goal and constraints",
prompt="""
<review_type>GOAL & CONSTRAINT VERIFICATION</review_type>
<original_goal>
{GOAL - paste the user's original request and any clarifications}
</original_goal>
<constraints>
{CONSTRAINTS - every rule, requirement, or limitation discussed}
</constraints>
<background>
{BACKGROUND - why this work was needed, broader context}
</background>
<changed_files>
{CHANGED_FILES - list of modShowing the first part of this file.
The lazy way to run omo inside Claude Code. A native Claude Code plugin marketplace by Sisyphus Labs. What it is · Install · Components · MCP · Telemetry · omo
Repo: code-yeongyu/lazyclaudecode
Other skills on lazyclaudecode.
- /comment-checker
Use when Codex needs to understand or respond to automatic comment-checker feedback emitted after an edit-like PostToolUse hook.
Open skill - /lsp
Use when Codex needs language-server diagnostics, definitions, references, symbols, or rename safety checks in the current workspace.
Open skill - /rules
Use when the user asks about Codex Rules behavior, injected project rules, supported rule file locations, matching, or environment configuration.
Open skill - /ultragoal
Goal-like loop that uses ultrawork mode to decompose work into systematic, evidence-bound steps.
Open skill - /ai-slop-remover
Removes AI-generated code smells from a SINGLE file while preserving functionality. For multiple files, call in PARALLEL per file.
Open skill - /comment-checker
Use when Codex needs to understand or respond to automatic comment-checker feedback emitted after an edit-like PostToolUse hook.
Open skill

