Default to outcome-first progress and completion reporting: state the target result, evidence, validation status, and stop condition before adding process detail.
Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints.
If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the review is grounded; stop once enough evidence exists.
Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, credentialed, external-production, or preference-dependent.

Delegates to the code-reviewer and architect agents in parallel for a two-lane review:

Identify Changes
- Run git diff to find changed files
- Determine scope of review (specific files or entire PR)
Launch Parallel Review Lanes
- code-reviewer lane - owns spec compliance, security, code quality, performance, and maintainability findings
- architect lane - owns the devil's-advocate / design-tradeoff perspective
- Both lanes run in parallel on a clean context with explicit scope and artifacts, and produce distinct outputs before final synthesis
- If either lane cannot be launched or does not return evidence, report independent review unavailable; do not substitute the current/authoring lane, and do not approve or mark the review merge-ready.
Review Categories
- Security - Hardcoded secrets, injection risks, XSS, CSRF
- Code Quality - Function size, complexity, nesting depth
- Performance - Algorithm efficiency, N+1 queries, caching
- Best Practices - Naming, documentation, error handling
- Maintainability - Duplication, coupling, testability
Severity Rating
- CRITICAL - Security vulnerability (must fix before merge)
- HIGH - Bug or major code smell (should fix before merge)
- MEDIUM - Minor issue (fix when possible)
- LOW - Style/suggestion (consider fixing)
Architectural Status Contract
- CLEAR - No unresolved architectural blocker was found
- WATCH - Non-blocking design/tradeoff concern that must appear in the final synthesis
- BLOCK - Unresolved design concern that prevents a merge-ready verdict
Specific Recommendations
- File:line locations for each issue
- Concrete fix suggestions
- Code examples where applicable
Final Synthesis
- Combine the code-reviewer recommendation and the architect status into one final verdict
- Approval requires explicit evidence from both independent lanes; missing or failed delegation is a blocking unavailable-review state, not an approval fallback
- Deterministic merge gating rules:
  - If architect status is BLOCK, final recommendation is REQUEST CHANGES
  - Else if code-reviewer recommendation is REQUEST CHANGES, final recommendation is REQUEST CHANGES
  - Else if architect status is WATCH, final recommendation is COMMENT
  - Else final recommendation follows the code-reviewer lane
- The final report must make architect blockers impossible to miss

State/HUD Phase Contract

Code-review is a merge-readiness gate and Autopilot child phase, not a standalone tracked mode with a code-review-state.json lifecycle. Keep HUD/current-phase state explicit and minimal:

Standalone $code-review activation: rely on the hook-owned skill-active-state.json entry (skill:"code-review", phase:"planning") for HUD visibility; do not create an ad-hoc code-review-state.json.
Inside active Autopilot: before review work starts, keep mode:"autopilot" active and set the supervised phase to current_phase:"code-review" / skill-active phase:"code-review"; do not activate a peer workflow over Autopilot.
On clean review: persist the review artifact/verdict under Autopilot handoff_artifacts.code_review and transition Autopilot to current_phase:"ultraqa" only after durable independent review evidence exists.
On non-clean review: persist the review artifact/verdict, set Autopilot current_phase:"rework" for implementation-only fixes or current_phase:"ralplan" when requirements/planning must change, and keep the findings as the scoped handoff.

Minimal Autopilot phase declaration when the review stage begins:

omx state write --input '{"mode":"autopilot","active":true,"current_phase":"code-review"}' --json

Agent Delegation

Do not self-review as a fallback. If the code-reviewer or architect agent path is missing, unavailable, skipped, or fails, emit a clear unavailable-review result and block approval until the independent lane evidence exists.

Respect the user's current model and reasoning/effort selection when launching review lanes. Do not pass model or reasoning_effort overrides in the review-lane task calls unless the user explicitly asks for review-specific overrides; omitting them lets native subagents inherit the active session settings.

task(
  agent_type="code-reviewer",
  prompt="CODE REVIEW TASK

Review code changes for quality, security, and maintainability.

This is the code/spec/security lane. Do not absorb architectural ownership.

Scope: [git diff or specific files]

Review Checklist:
- Security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10)
- Code quality (complexity, duplication)
- Performance issues (N+1, inefficient algorithms)
- Best practices (naming, documentation, error handling)
- Maintainability (coupling, testability)

Output: Code review report with:
- Files reviewed count
- Issues by severity (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
- Specific file:line locations
- Fix recommendations
- Approval recommendation (APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / COMMENT)"
)

task(
  agent_type="architect",
  prompt="ARCHITECTURE / DEVIL'S-ADVOCATE REVIEW TASK

Review the same code changes from the architecture/tradeoff perspective.

Scope: [git diff or specific files]

Focus:
- System boundaries and interfaces
- Hidden coupling or long-term maintainability risks
- Tradeoff tension the main reviewer might miss
- Strongest counterargument against approving as-is

Output:
- Architectural Status: CLEAR / WATCH / BLOCK
- File:line evidence for each concern
- Concrete tradeoff or design recommendation"
)

Run both lanes in parallel, then synthesize them with the deterministic rules above.

External Model Consultation (Preferred)

The code-reviewer agent SHOULD consult Codex for cross-validation.

Protocol

Form your OWN review FIRST - Complete the review independently
Consult for validation - Cross-check findings with Codex
Critically evaluate - Never blindly adopt external findings
Graceful optional consultation fallback - Never block because optional external consultation tools are unavailable; this does not waive the required independent code-reviewer and architect lanes

When to Consult

Security-sensitive code changes
Complex architectural patterns
Unfamiliar codebases or languages
High-stakes production code

When to Skip

Simple refactoring
Well-understood patterns
Time-critical reviews
Small, isolated changes

Tool Usage

Prefer native code-reviewer agent consultation or CLI-backed ask_codex surfaces when available. Optional MCP compatibility ask tools may be used only when already enabled. If optional external consultation tools are unavailable, continue with the required independent code-reviewer and architect lanes; do not replace those lanes with self-review.

Note: Codex calls can take up to 1 hour. Consider the review timeline before consulting.

Output Format

CODE REVIEW REPORT
==================

Files Reviewed: 8
Total Issues: 12
Architectural Status: WATCH

CRITICAL (0)
-----------
(none)

HIGH (0)
--------
(none)

MEDIUM (7)
----------
1. src/api/auth.ts:42
   Issue: Email normalization logic is duplicated instead of reusing the shared helper
   Risk: Validation rules can drift between authentication paths
   Fix: Route both paths through the shared normalization helper

2. src/components/UserProfile.tsx:89
   Issue: Derived permissions are recalculated on every render
   Risk: Avoidable work during profile refreshes
   Fix: Memoize the derived permissions list or compute it upstream

3. src/utils/validation.ts:15
   Issue: Form-layer and server-layer validation messages are defined separately
   Risk: User-facing validation guidance can become inconsistent
   Fix: Share one validation message helper across both call sites

LOW (5)
-------
...

ARCHITECTURE WATCHLIST
----------------------
- src/review/orchestrator.ts:88
  Concern: Review result synthesis relies on implicit ordering rather than an explicit blocker contract
  Status: WATCH
  Recommendation: Define deterministic merge gating before expanding reviewers

SYNTHESIS
---------
- code-reviewer recommendation: COMMENT
- architect status: WATCH
- final recommendation: COMMENT

RECOMMENDATION: COMMENT

Address any WATCH concerns before treating the change as merge-ready.

Review Checklist

The code-reviewer lane checks:

Security

No hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords, tokens)
All user inputs sanitized
SQL/NoSQL injection prevention
XSS prevention (escaped outputs)
CSRF protection on state-changing operations
Authentication/authorization properly enforced

Code Quality

Functions < 50 lines (guideline)
Cyclomatic complexity < 10
No deeply nested code (> 4 levels)
No duplicate logic (DRY principle)
Clear, descriptive naming

Performance

No N+1 query patterns
Appropriate caching where applicable
Efficient algorithms (avoid O(n²) when O(n) possible)
No unnecessary re-renders (React/Vue)

Best Practices

Error handling present and appropriate
Logging at appropriate levels
Documentation for public APIs
Tests for critical paths
No commented-out code

Architect Lane Checklist

The architect lane checks:

Boundary or interface changes are explicit
New coupling/tradeoff risks are surfaced
Long-horizon maintainability concerns are evidence-backed
Architectural status is one of CLEAR, WATCH, or BLOCK
Any BLOCK concern cites the reason merge-ready status should be withheld

Approval Criteria

APPROVE - code-reviewer returns APPROVE, architect status is CLEAR, and both independent lanes returned evidence REQUEST CHANGES - code-reviewer returns REQUEST CHANGES, architect status is BLOCK, or required independent review delegation is unavailable/skipped/failed COMMENT - code-reviewer returns COMMENT with architect status CLEAR, architect status is WATCH, or only LOW/MEDIUM improvements remain

Scenario Examples

Good: The user says continue after the workflow already has a clear next step. Continue the current branch of work instead of restarting or re-asking the same question.

Good: The user changes only the output shape or downstream delivery step (for example make a PR). Preserve earlier non-conflicting workflow constraints and apply the update locally.

Bad: The user says continue, and the workflow restarts discovery or stops before the missing verification/evidence is gathered.

Use with Other Skills

With Team:

/team "review recent auth changes and report findings"

Includes coordinated review execution across specialized agents.

With Ralph:

/ralph code-review then fix all issues

On the explicit Ralph path, review findings should flow into automatic fix follow-up without another permission prompt. Plain code-review itself remains read-only and does not promise auto-fix.

With Ultrawork:

/ultrawork review all files in src/

Parallel code review across multiple files.

Best Practices

Review early - Catch issues before they compound
Review often - Small, frequent reviews better than huge ones
Address CRITICAL/HIGH first - Fix security and bugs immediately
Consider context - Some "issues" may be intentional trade-offs
Learn from reviews - Use feedback to improve coding practices