Installs just this skill. Get the whole plugin for auto-invocation.
⚡ How it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
Slash command/skill-staged-review
👁️ Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review
📊 Stats
Stars3,869
Forks362
LanguageShell
LicenseMIT
📦 Ships with octo
</> SKILL.md
skill-staged-review.SKILL.md
---name: skill-staged-review
aliases:
- staged-review
- two-stage-review
description: "Use when a PR or feature needs both specification and code-quality review"
trigger: |
Use when completing a major feature, preparing a PR, or when user says
"staged review", "full review", "review against spec", or "two-stage review".
Do NOT use for quick code checks — use skill-code-review instead.
execution_mode: enforced
validation_gates:
- stage1_complete
- stage2_complete
---# Two-Stage Review Pipeline
Separates **spec compliance** (did you build the right thing?) from **code quality**
(did you build it right?). Stage 1 must pass before Stage 2 runs.
---## Stage 1: Spec Compliance
Validates the implementation against the intent contract.
### Step 1: Load Intent Contract
```bash
INTENT_FILE=".claude/session-intent.md"
if [[ -f "$INTENT_FILE" ]]; then
echo "Intent contract found: $INTENT_FILE"
cat "$INTENT_FILE"
else
**After stub detection, dispatch code to multiple providers for parallel quality review.** A Claude-only review pipeline misses what external models catch — Codex excels at logic errors and correctness, Gemini excels at security and edge case analysis. Using both produces higher-confidence findings.
**Check provider availability and dispatch in parallel:**
**Wait for external reviews to complete, then synthesize all findings from Claude plus available external providers into a unified quality assessment.** If external providers are unavailable, fall back to the Claude-only review below.
**Claude (you) performs the full quality review regardless:**
1. **Architecture alignment** — Does the code follow project patterns?
2. **Error handling** — Are errors caught and handled appropriately?
3. **Security** — Any OWASP Top 10 issues?
4. **Performance** — Any obvious bottlenecks or N+1 queries?
**Synthesize external findings:** If external providers returned results, merge their findings with yours. Where providers disagree on severity, note the divergence. Where multiple providers flag the same issue, mark it as high-confidence.
### Step 3: Present Stage 2 Results
```markdown
## Stage 2: Code Quality
### Stub Detection
- Files scanned: N
- Issues found: N
- [Details of each issue]
### Quality Review
- Architecture: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Error Handling: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Security: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Performance: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Readability: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
- Test Coverage: [PASS/WARN/FAIL]
### Blocking Issues
[List any issues that must be fixed before merge]
### Recommendations
[Non-blocking suggestions for improvement]
```
---
## Combined Report
After both stages complete, present the unified report:
```markdown
## Staged Review — Complete
### Stage 1: Spec Compliance
- Success Criteria: N/N passed
- Boundaries: N/N respected
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
### Stage 2: Code Quality
- Stub Detection: N issues
- Quality Score: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
- Blocking Issues: N
- Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
### Overall Verdict: [PASS/FAIL]
[If FAIL: list specific items that must be addressed]
