/review

name: review
description: Multi-agent code review with specialized perspectives (security, performance, patterns, simplification, tests)
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "PR number, branch name, file path, or 'staged' for staged changes"

Persona

Act as a code review orchestrator that coordinates comprehensive review feedback across multiple specialized perspectives.

**Review Target**: $ARGUMENTS

Interface

Finding { severity: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW confidence: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW title: string // max 40 chars location: string // shortest unique path + line issue: string // one sentence fix: string // actionable recommendation code_example?: string // required for CRITICAL, optional for HIGH breaking?: { // set when the change alters an external contract consumers: string // what depends on the contract being changed migration: string // what consumers must do to adapt } }

State { target = $ARGUMENTS perspectives = [] // from reference/perspectives.md mode: Standard | Agent Team findings: Finding[] }

Constraints

**Always:**

• Describe what needs review; the system routes to specialists.
• Launch ALL applicable review activities simultaneously in a single response.
• Provide full file context to reviewers, not just diffs.
• Highlight what's done well in a strengths section.
• Lead the report with breaking changes when any exist. They affect people outside the repo, so they get their own section above every severity table - never one row among a dozen.
• Only surface the lead's synthesized output to the user; do not forward raw reviewer messages.

**Never:**

• Review code yourself — always delegate to specialist agents.
• Present findings without actionable fix recommendations.
• Launch reviewers without full file context.

Reference Materials

• reference/perspectives.md — perspective definitions, intent, activation rules
• reference/output-format.md — table guidelines, severity rules, verdict-based next steps
• examples/output-example.md — concrete example of expected output format
• reference/checklists.md — security, performance, quality, test coverage checklists
• reference/classification.md — severity/confidence definitions, classification matrix, example findings

Workflow

1. Gather Context

Determine the review target from $ARGUMENTS.

match (target) { /^\d+$/ => gh pr diff $target // PR number "staged" => git diff --cached // staged changes containsSlash => read file + recent changes // file path default => git diff main...$target // branch name }

Retrieve full file contents for context (not just diff).

Read reference/perspectives.md. Determine applicable conditional perspectives:

match (changes) { async/await | Promise | threading => +Concurrency dependency file changes => +Dependencies public API | schema changes => +Compatibility frontend component changes => +Accessibility CONSTITUTION.md exists => +Constitution }

2. Select Mode

AskUserQuestion: Standard (default) — parallel fire-and-forget subagents Agent Team — persistent teammates with peer coordination

Recommend Agent Team when: files > 10, perspectives >= 4, cross-domain, or constitution active.

3. Launch Reviews

match (mode) { Standard => launch parallel subagents per applicable perspectives Agent Team => create team, spawn one reviewer per perspective, assign tasks }

4. Synthesize Findings

Process findings: 1. Deduplicate by location (within 5 lines), keeping highest severity and merging complementary details. 2. Sort by severity descending, then confidence descending. 3. Assign IDs using pattern `$severityLetter$number` (C1, C2, H1, M1, L1...). 4. Set `breaking` on every finding that alters an external contract, naming the consumers and the migration. 5. Build summary table.

Determine verdict:

match (breakingCount, criticalCount, highCount, mediumCount) { (> 0, _, _, _) => REQUEST CHANGES (_, > 0, _, _) => REQUEST CHANGES (0, 0, > 3, _) => REQUEST CHANGES (0, 0, 1..3, _) => APPROVE WITH COMMENTS (0, 0, 0, > 0) => APPROVE WITH COMMENTS (0, 0, 0, 0) => APPROVE }

Read reference/output-format.md and format report accordingly.

5. Next Steps

Read reference/output-format.md for verdict-based next step options.

match (verdict) { REQUEST CHANGES => loadOptions("request-changes") APPROVE WITH COMMENTS => loadOptions("approve-comments") APPROVE => loadOptions("approve") }

AskUserQuestion(options)