/review

name: review
description: 'Run a standard Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Args: --wait, --background, --base <ref>, --scope <auto|working-tree|branch>, --model <model>, --effort <low|medium|high|xhigh|max>. Defaults to opus with no forced effort. Use as the default path for ordinary code-review requests when the user did not explicitly ask for stronger adversarial scrutiny or for Claude to own the implementation work.'

Claude Code Review

Use this skill when the user wants Claude Code to review the current working tree or a branch diff in this repository.

Use `$cc:review` as the default when the user asks for code review, asks you to have Claude review something, or wants a second review pass without explicitly asking for stronger adversarial scrutiny. If the user asks for stronger challenge on design, tradeoffs, rollout risk, migration risk, configuration behavior, or provides custom review focus text, route to `$cc:adversarial-review` instead. If the user wants Claude Code to investigate, validate by changing code, or actually fix/implement something, route to `$cc:rescue` instead. If the overall request is "you review it too, also ask Claude to review in the background, then you aggregate and fix it", keep the delegated Claude part on `$cc:review` unless the user explicitly asks for a harsher or more adversarial review. `$cc:review` does not accept custom focus text. If the user wants to steer Claude toward a particular angle, question, subsystem, or risk area, that is a signal to use `$cc:adversarial-review` instead.

Resolve `<plugin-root>` as two directories above this `SKILL.md` file. Always run the companion from that active plugin root: `node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review ...`

Supported arguments: `--wait`, `--background`, `--base <ref>`, `--scope auto|working-tree|branch`, `--model <model>`, `--effort <low|medium|high|xhigh|max>` (defaults: model=opus and no effort; `fable`, `opus`, `sonnet`, and `haiku` each keep Claude Code's own effort default, and Claude Code owns which effort levels each model supports)

Forward `--model` unchanged to the companion. The companion trims surrounding whitespace, canonicalizes the friendly aliases `fable`, `opus`, `sonnet`, and `haiku` to lowercase, then forwards every other `--model` value unchanged to Claude Code. Claude Code owns alias resolution and supported effort levels; `/model` is the authoritative picker for the current account and provider.

Raw slash-command arguments: `$ARGUMENTS`

Rules:

• This skill is review-only. Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
• Before launching the review, stay in read-only inspection mode: inspect git status and diff stats only, then ask at most one user question about whether to wait or run in background.
• Preserve the user's review scope flags exactly.
• Do not accept staged-only or unstaged-only review modes.
• Do not add extra review instructions or focus text. Route those requests to `$cc:adversarial-review`.

Execution mode rules:

• If the raw arguments include `--wait`, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground.
• If the raw arguments include `--background`, do not ask. Run the review in background through the built-in review subagent path.
• Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
• For working-tree review, start with `git status --short --untracked-files=all`.
• For working-tree review, also inspect both `git diff --shortstat --cached` and `git diff --shortstat`.
• For base-branch review, use `git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD`.
• Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when `git diff --shortstat` is empty.
• Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
• Recommend waiting only when the review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
• In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
• When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
• Then ask the user once which execution mode to use, offering two options with the recommended one first and its label suffixed `(Recommended)`:
• `Wait for results`
• `Run in background`
• Use a question tool for that ask only when this thread actually has one. Codex exposes `request_user_input` by default in interactive threads and hides it only when `[tools] experimental_request_user_input = false`, and it does not exist in non-interactive threads. If you have no question tool but a user is reading this thread, ask in your own reply and stop there. In a non-interactive thread with no user to answer, skip the ask and proceed with the recommended mode. Never spin on a wait or collaboration tool looking for a picker this thread does not have.

Argument handling:

• Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
• Treat `--wait` and `--background` as Codex-side execution controls only. Strip them before calling the companion command.
• `$cc:review` is native-review only. It does not support staged-only review, unstaged-only review, or extra focus text.
• If the user needs custom review instructions or more adversarial framing, they should use `$cc:adversarial-review`.
• The companion review process itself always runs in the foreground. Background mode only changes how Codex launches that command.
• For the detailed execution contract, treat the internal runtime reference at `../../internal-skills/review-runtime/runtime.md` as supporting guidance only. It is an internal reference document, not a public skill to invoke.

Foreground flow:

• Run:

`node "<plugin-root>/scripts/claude-companion.mjs" review --view-state on-success <arguments with --wait/--background removed>`

• Run that companion command with `sandbox_permissions: "require_escalated"` and the justification `Allow the Claude Code companion to contact the Claude API for thi