code-review

name	code-review
description	Automated PR code review with multi-agent analysis
version	1.0.0
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode

Overview

Automated code review for pull requests using multiple specialized agents with confidence-based scoring to filter false positives.

Prerequisites

• GitHub CLI installed and authenticated
• github-pr skill installed (bundled automatically)
• AGENTS.md files in your repository (optional but recommended)

Slash Command

/code-review [--comment]

Performs automated code review on a pull request using multiple specialized agents.

Options:

• --comment - Post the review as inline comments on the PR (default: outputs to terminal only)

Example:

# Review current branch's PR (output to terminal)
/code-review

# Post review as PR comments
/code-review --comment

What It Does

1. Pre-check: Determines if review is needed (skips closed, draft, trivial, or already-reviewed PRs)
2. Guideline Discovery: Gathers relevant AGENTS.md files from the repository
3. PR Summary: Summarizes the pull request changes
4. Parallel Review: Launches 4 agents to independently review:
   • Agents 1 & 2: Audit for AGENTS.md compliance
   • Agent 3: Scan for obvious bugs in the diff
   • Agent 4: Analyze for logic issues in changed code
5. Validation: Each issue is validated by a sub-agent
6. Output: Posts inline comments or outputs to terminal

Agent Orchestration Instructions

Follow these steps precisely when executing /code-review:

Step 1: Pre-check

Run the review check script:

bun .opencode/skill/github-pr/check-review-needed.js

If shouldReview is false, stop and report the reason. Do not proceed with review.

Note: Still review Claude/AI-generated PRs - only skip if Claude has already commented on the PR.

Step 2: Gather Guidelines

Run the guideline discovery script:

bun .opencode/skill/github-pr/list-guideline-files.js --json

This returns all AGENTS.md files relevant to the PR. Store these for use in compliance checking.

Step 3: Summarize PR

Launch a haiku agent to view the PR and return a summary of the changes:

gh pr view --json title,body,files,additions,deletions
gh pr diff

The summary should include:

• PR title and description
• List of changed files with brief descriptions
• Overall nature of the changes

Step 4: Parallel Review Agents

Launch 4 agents in parallel to independently review the changes. Each agent should return a list of issues with:

• Description of the issue
• Reason it was flagged (e.g., "AGENTS.md compliance", "bug", "logic error")
• File path and line number(s)
• Confidence score (0-100)

Provide each agent with the PR title, description, and summary from Step 3.

Agents 1 & 2: AGENTS.md Compliance (Sonnet)

Audit changes for AGENTS.md compliance. When evaluating compliance:

• Only consider AGENTS.md files that share a file path with the file being reviewed (or its parents)
• Verify the guideline explicitly mentions the rule being violated
• Quote the exact rule from AGENTS.md in the issue description

Agent 3: Bug Detection (Opus)

Scan for obvious bugs. Focus only on the diff itself without reading extra context:

• Flag only significant bugs that will cause incorrect behavior
• Ignore nitpicks and likely false positives
• Do not flag issues that cannot be validated from the diff alone

Agent 4: Logic Analysis (Opus)

Look for problems in the introduced code:

• Security issues
• Incorrect logic
• Race conditions
• Resource leaks

Only flag issues within the changed code.

CRITICAL: HIGH SIGNAL ONLY

We want:

• Objective bugs that will cause incorrect behavior at runtime
• Clear, unambiguous AGENTS.md violations with quoted rules

We do NOT want:

• Subjective concerns or "suggestions"
• Style preferences not in AGENTS.md
• Potential issues that "might" be problems
• Anything requiring interpretation

If uncertain, do not flag. False positives erode trust.

Step 5: Validate Issues

For each issue found in Step 4, launch a validation sub-agent:

• Bugs/logic issues: Use Opus agent
• AGENTS.md violations: Use Sonnet agent

The validator receives:

• PR title and description
• Issue description and location
• Relevant code context

The validator must confirm:

• The issue is real and verifiable
• For AGENTS.md issues: the rule exists and applies to this file
• The issue was introduced in this PR (not pre-existing)

Step 6: Filter Results

Remove any issues that:

• Failed validation in Step 5
• Are pre-existing (not introduced in this PR)
• Appear correct but look like bugs
• Are pedantic nitpicks
• Would be caught by linters
• Are general quality concerns not in AGENTS.md
• Have lint ignore comments

Step 7: Post Results

If issues were found, post inline comments using:

bun .opencode/skill/github-pr/post-inline-comment.js <pr-number> \
  --path <file> \
  --line <line> \
  [--start-line <start>] \
  --body "<comment>"

Comment format:

For small fixes (up to 5 lines changed), include a suggestion:

Brief description of the issue

```suggestion
corrected code here
```

For larger fixes, describe the issue and provide a prompt:

Description of the issue and suggested fix at a high level.

Fix prompt:
`Fix [file:line]: [brief description]`

Important:

• Only post ONE comment per unique issue
• Suggestions must be COMPLETE - no follow-up work required
• Link to AGENTS.md when citing compliance issues

If NO issues were found and --comment flag is provided, post a summary:

gh pr comment <pr-number> --body "## Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and AGENTS.md compliance."

Confidence Scoring

Each issue is scored 0-100:

Score	Meaning
0	Not confident, false positive
25	Somewhat confident, might be real
50	Moderately confident, real but minor
75	Highly confident, real and important
100	Absolutely certain, definitely real

Only issues scoring 80 or higher are reported.

False Positive Filters

These are NOT issues (do not flag):

• Pre-existing issues not introduced in this PR
• Code that looks like a bug but is actually correct
• Pedantic nitpicks a senior engineer would ignore
• Issues linters will catch (don't run linter to verify)
• General quality concerns unless in AGENTS.md
• Code with lint ignore comments

Code Link Format

When linking to code in comments, use this exact format:

https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/[full-sha]/path/file.ext#L[start]-L[end]

Requirements:

• Must use full git SHA (not abbreviated)
• Must use #L notation for lines
• Include at least 1 line of context before and after

Best Practices

For Better Reviews

• Maintain clear AGENTS.md files with specific rules
• Include context in PR descriptions
• Keep PRs focused and reasonably sized

When to Use

• All PRs with meaningful changes
• PRs touching critical code paths
• PRs where guideline compliance matters

When Not to Use

• Draft PRs (automatically skipped)
• Closed PRs (automatically skipped)
• Trivial automated PRs (automatically skipped)
• Urgent hotfixes requiring immediate merge