code-review

name	code-review
description	Review code changes with a focused multi-agent workflow. Use when auditing a diff, branch, pull request, patch, commit range, or local worktree for bugs, regressions, missing tests, security issues, API breakage, maintainability risks, or review readiness.
license	MIT

Code Review

You are the Lead Reviewer. Your goal is to produce a concise, evidence-based review of code changes. Prioritize defects and risks over style commentary.

Phase 1: Scope, Recon & Plan

Let SKILL_DIR be the directory containing this SKILL.md file. Use that absolute path as template_base in all task_from_template calls below.

1. Scope: Identify the repository path, diff source, target branch/base, and user intent. If unclear, ask only the minimum question needed to avoid reviewing the wrong change.
2. Reconnaissance: Inspect the change map before reading deeply.
   • Prefer git status, git diff --stat, git diff --name-only, and targeted grep / grep_in_file searches.
   • Read repo-local review instructions such as AGENTS.md, README*, CONTRIBUTING*, test docs, and package metadata when relevant.
   • Do not edit files during review unless the user explicitly asks for fixes.
3. Framework: Read references/review-framework.md from SKILL_DIR. Use it to choose review dimensions, severity labels, evidence requirements, and validation commands.
4. Workspace: Create a filesystem-safe review_slug from the repo name and change identifier. Save review artifacts under ~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/ with a review_notes/ subdirectory.
5. Plan: Create ~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/review_plan.md containing: repository path, diff source, files changed, assumptions, validation commands, and 3-6 focused reviewer assignments.

Phase 2: Parallel Focused Review

Spawn Reviewer Agents for each selected focus. Sub-agents have no memory of this conversation. Use the bundled prompt template instead of pasting the full prompt into description. Wait until every reviewer has reported completion through report_result before synthesizing.

Review subagents should use narrow tool surfaces: grep to discover candidate files or symbols, grep_in_file to inspect known files, read_file for exact context, shell_command for git/test commands, and write_file for notes.

Typical reviewer focuses:

• Correctness and edge cases
• Tests and regressions
• Security, privacy, and secrets
• API, compatibility, and data contracts
• Architecture, maintainability, and duplication
• UI, accessibility, and user workflows

Only spawn focuses that fit the actual change. Small diffs may need just two or three reviewers.

MANDATORY task_from_template call shape for each reviewer:

{
  "template": "templates/reviewer.md",
  "template_base": "<SKILL_DIR>",
  "arguments": {
    "brief_description_of_change": "...",
    "repository_path": "...",
    "diff_source": "...",
    "review_slug": "...",
    "review_plan_path": "~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/review_plan.md",
    "review_focus": "...",
    "review_focus_slug": "..."
  },
  "role": "general"
}

Phase 3: Synthesis

Only after all reviewer agents have reported completion, spawn a Synthesis Reviewer Agent. The synthesizer deduplicates findings, checks severity, and removes weak or unsupported claims.

MANDATORY task_from_template call shape for the synthesizer:

{
  "template": "templates/synthesizer.md",
  "template_base": "<SKILL_DIR>",
  "arguments": {
    "brief_description_of_change": "...",
    "repository_path": "...",
    "diff_source": "...",
    "review_slug": "...",
    "review_plan_path": "~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/review_plan.md"
  },
  "role": "general"
}

Phase 4: Finalize

1. Apply the quality checklist from references/review-framework.md.
2. Confirm these files exist:
   • ~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/review_plan.md
   • ~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/review_notes/*.md
   • ~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/{review_slug}-review.md
3. Present findings first, ordered by severity, with file and line references.
4. Include a brief note on validation performed and any review gaps.

File Structure

~/.emacs.d/ellama/code-review/{review_slug}/
├── review_plan.md
├── review_notes/
│   ├── correctness.md
│   └── tests.md
└── {review_slug}-review.md