/full-review

description: "Orchestrate comprehensive multi-dimensional code review using specialized review agents across architecture, security, performance, testing, and best practices"
argument-hint: "<target path or description> [--security-focus] [--performance-critical] [--strict-mode] [--framework react|spring|django|rails]"

Comprehensive Code Review Orchestrator

CRITICAL BEHAVIORAL RULES

You MUST follow these rules exactly. Violating any of them is a failure.

1. **Execute phases in order.** Do NOT skip ahead, reorder, or merge phases. 2. **Write output files.** Each phase MUST produce its output file in `.full-review/` before the next phase begins. Read from prior phase files -- do NOT rely on context window memory. 3. **Stop at checkpoints.** When you reach a `PHASE CHECKPOINT`, you MUST stop and wait for explicit user approval before continuing. Use the AskUserQuestion tool with clear options. 4. **Halt on failure.** If any step fails (agent error, missing files, access issues), STOP immediately. Present the error and ask the user how to proceed. Do NOT silently continue. 5. **Use only local agents.** All `subagent_type` references use agents bundled with this plugin or `general-purpose`. No cross-plugin dependencies. 6. **Never enter plan mode autonomously.** Do NOT use EnterPlanMode. This command IS the plan -- execute it.

Pre-flight Checks

Before starting, perform these checks:

1. Check for existing session

Check if `.full-review/state.json` exists:

• If it exists and `status` is `"in_progress"`: Read it, display the current phase, and ask the user:

  Found an in-progress review session:
  Target: [target from state]
  Current phase: [phase from state]

  1. Resume from where we left off
  2. Start fresh (archives existing session)

• If it exists and `status` is `"complete"`: Ask whether to archive and start fresh.

2. Initialize state

Create `.full-review/` directory and `state.json`:

{
  "target": "$ARGUMENTS",
  "status": "in_progress",
  "flags": {
    "security_focus": false,
    "performance_critical": false,
    "strict_mode": false,
    "framework": null
  },
  "current_step": 1,
  "current_phase": 1,
  "completed_steps": [],
  "files_created": [],
  "started_at": "ISO_TIMESTAMP",
  "last_updated": "ISO_TIMESTAMP"
}

Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for `--security-focus`, `--performance-critical`, `--strict-mode`, and `--framework` flags. Update the flags object accordingly.

3. Identify review target

Determine what code to review from `$ARGUMENTS`:

• If a file/directory path is given, verify it exists
• If a description is given (e.g., "recent changes", "authentication module"), identify the relevant files
• List the files that will be reviewed and confirm with the user

**Output file:** `.full-review/00-scope.md`

# Review Scope

## Target

[Description of what is being reviewed]

## Files

[List of files/directories included in the review]

## Flags

- Security Focus: [yes/no]
- Performance Critical: [yes/no]
- Strict Mode: [yes/no]
- Framework: [name or auto-detected]

## Review Phases

1. Code Quality & Architecture
2. Security & Performance
3. Testing & Documentation
4. Best Practices & Standards
5. Consolidated Report

Update `state.json`: add `"00-scope.md"` to `files_created`, add step 0 to `completed_steps`.

---

Phase 1: Code Quality & Architecture Review (Steps 1A-1B)

Run both agents in parallel using multiple Task tool calls in a single response.

Step 1A: Code Quality Analysis

Task:
  subagent_type: "comprehensive-review-code-reviewer"
  description: "Code quality analysis for $ARGUMENTS"
  prompt: |
    Perform a comprehensive code quality review.

    ## Review Scope
    [Insert contents of .full-review/00-scope.md]

    ## Instructions
    Analyze the target code for:
    1. **Code complexity**: Cyclomatic complexity, cognitive complexity, deeply nested logic
    2. **Maintainability**: Naming conventions, function/method length, class cohesion
    3. **Code duplication**: Copy-pasted logic, missed abstraction opportunities
    4. **Clean Code principles**: SOLID violations, code smells, anti-patterns
    5. **Technical debt**: Areas that will become increasingly costly to change
    6. **Error handling**: Missing error handling, swallowed exceptions, unclear error messages

    For each finding, provide:
    - Severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
    - File and line location
    - Description of the issue
    - Specific fix recommendation with code example

    Write your findings as a structured markdown document.

Step 1B: Architecture & Design Review

Task:
  subagent_type: "comprehensive-review-architect-review"
  description: "Architecture review for $ARGUMENTS"
  prompt: |
    Review the architectural design and structural integrity of the target code.

    ## Review Scope
    [Insert contents of .full-review/00-scope.md]

    ## Instructions
    Evaluate the code for:
    1. **Component boundaries**: Proper separation of concerns, module cohesion
    2. **Dependency management**: Circular dependencies, inappropriate coupling, dependency direction
    3. **API design**: Endpoint design, request/response schemas, error contracts, versioning
    4. **Data model**: Schema design, relationships, data access patterns
    5. **Design patterns**: Appropriate use of patterns, missing abstractions, over-engineering
    6. **Architectural consistency**: Does the code follow the project's established patterns?

    For each finding, provide:
    - Severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low)
    - Architectural impact assessment
    - Specific improvement recommendation

    Write your findings as a structured markdown document.

After both complete, consolidate into `.full-review/01-quality-architecture.md`:

# Phase 1: Code Quality & Architecture Review

## Code Quality Findings

[Summary from 1A, organized by severity]

## Architecture Findings

[Summa