/review-code

name: review-code
description: "Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to \"review my code\", \"full code review\", \"review my changes\", \"check for bugs\", \"scan for bugs\", \"review correctness\", \"security audit\", \"find vulnerabilities\", \"review security\", \"check API usage\", \"verify against docs\", \"check for cross-file duplication\", \"review consistency\", \"check for code reuse\", \"review simplicity\", \"find untested code\", or \"review test coverage\"."

Review Code

Review code against type-specific criteria. Runs internal reviews and `/peer-review` in parallel by default. Returns combined structured findings.

**Types:** `correctness`, `security`, `api-usage`, `consistency`, `simplicity`, `coverage`

With a type argument, runs a single-concern internal review plus the peer review. With no type argument, runs all six internal reviews plus the peer review.

Step 1: Determine the Scope

Determine what to review:

• If a specific **diff command** was provided (e.g., `git diff --cached`, `git diff origin/main...HEAD`), use that.
• If a **file list or directory** was provided, review those files directly (read the full files, not a diff).
• If **neither** was provided, default to diffing against the repository's default branch (detect via `gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name'`). If there are no changes against the default branch, stop and state that there is nothing to review.

State the resolved file list before continuing: add `--name-only` to a diff command, or list the files for a file or directory scope. When the scope is a staged diff, also state how many further files `git diff HEAD --name-only` reports, so a scope narrower than intended stays visible before fanning out.

Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel

Each active type maps to a criteria reference file:

• **Correctness** — [references/correctness-review.md](references/correctness-review.md)
• **Security** — [references/security-review.md](references/security-review.md)
• **API usage** — [references/api-usage-review.md](references/api-usage-review.md)
• **Consistency** — [references/consistency-review.md](references/consistency-review.md)
• **Simplicity** — [references/simplicity-review.md](references/simplicity-review.md)
• **Coverage** — [references/coverage-review.md](references/coverage-review.md)

Full review activates all six types; a single-concern argument activates one. Skip peer review when instructed (e.g., "without peer review", "no peer", "internal only").

Before dispatching, read the project's test configuration and CI workflow to identify any test tier that resets a shared external resource between tests, such as a database, a fixed port, or a cache. Such tiers have no cross-process interlock, so agents running them concurrently wipe each other's state and return failures indistinguishable from defects in the change. Name any such tier to every agent as off-limits when the review does not depend on running it. When the change under review is what that tier exists to exercise, so that judging it at all requires running the tier, direct each agent instead to provision its own isolated instance of the resource, prepare it through the project's own setup path, run against it, and tear it down afterward. One shared instance carrying an instruction to run a single agent at a time is not sufficient, since nothing enforces that across agents. When an agent's own instance cannot be provisioned, the tier is left unrun and reported as such.

Direct every agent that runs a test suite to redirect the runner's output to a file under `$TMPDIR` and read the file. Piping a runner to `head`, `tail`, or another command that closes the stream early returns while the runner is still going, so an agent that believes its run finished leaves one live to overlap the next agent's.

When the scope contains a guard whose safety rests on an assumption stated in the conversation, in a plan file, or in a code comment, give every agent that assumption as the claim to refute rather than as background.

When the scope contains content that a build or render transform rewrites before it ships — markup compiled to components, template expansion, code generation, translation extraction — build the project before dispatching, in an isolated `git worktree` under `$TMPDIR` when the build writes to tracked files or reaches the shared install through a package-manager wrapper, and name the emitted files as part of the scope every agent receives, so each type judges the emitted artifact rather than the source. Refer to that worktree by absolute path in every command and join chained steps with `&&`, so a failed step cannot leave the rest running in the shared checkout.

Confine each agent's prompt to what to review, plus the conventions and factual properties that bear on it. A statement that tells an agent what verdict to reach about a property of the existing code binds it to accept the very property the review exists to assess.

When a list of already-adjudicated findings was supplied (one line each: the finding, its verdict, and the recorded reason), include it in every agent's prompt, internal and peer, labeled as decisions already reached on proposed changes rather than as established properties of the code. Direct each agent to treat a finding as listed when it matches one on both location and substance, to raise such a finding again only on evidence its recorded reason does not already account for, and to judge any other finding at the same location on its own merits.

Emit all Agent tool calls below in one assistant message. Each Agent call uses `model: "opus"` and no `name`. Wait for every agent to report before continu