Parallel read-only multi-agent review of a current git diff or explicit file scope to find behavioral regressions, security or privacy risks, performance or reliability issues, and contract or test coverage gaps. Use when the user asks for a review swarm, parallel review, diff review,...
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
Parallel read-only multi-agent review of a current git diff or explicit file scope to find behavioral regressions, security or privacy risks, performance or reliability issues, and contract or test coverage gaps. Use when the user asks for a review swarm, parallel review, diff review,...
Use this skill when you need parallel read-only multi-agent review of a current git diff or explicit file scope to find behavioral regressions, security or privacy risks, performance or reliability issues, and contract or test coverage gaps. Use when the user asks for a review swarm, parallel review, diff review,...
Review a diff with four read-only sub-agents in parallel, then have the main agent filter, order, and summarize only the issues that matter. This skill is review-only: sub-agents do not edit files, and the main agent does not apply fixes as part of this workflow.
Step 1: Determine Scope and Intent
Prefer this scope order:
Files or paths explicitly named by the user
Current git changes
An explicit branch, commit, or PR diff requested by the user
Most recently modified tracked files, only if the user asked for a review and there is no clearer diff
If there is no clear review scope, stop and say so briefly.
When using git changes, choose the smallest correct diff command:
unstaged work: git diff
staged work: git diff --cached
mixed staged and unstaged work: review both
explicit branch or commit comparison: use exactly what the user requested
Before launching reviewers, read the closest local instructions and any relevant project docs for the touched area, such as:
AGENTS.md
repo workflow docs
architecture or contract docs for the touched module
Build a short intent packet for the reviewers:
What behavior is meant to change
What behavior should remain unchanged
Any stated or inferred constraints, such as compatibility, rollout, security, or migration expectations
If the user did not state the intent clearly, infer it from the diff and say that the inference may be incomplete.
Step 2: Launch Four Read-Only Reviewers in Parallel
Launch four sub-agents when the scope is large enough for parallel review to help. For a tiny diff or one very small file, it is acceptable to review locally instead.
For every sub-agent:
give the same scope and the same intent packet
state that the sub-agent is read-only
do not let the sub-agent edit files, run apply_patch, stage changes, commit, or perform any other state-mutating action
ask for concise findings only
ask for: file and line or symbol, issue, why it matters, recommended follow-up, and confidence
tell the sub-agent to avoid nits, style preferences, and speculative concerns without concrete impact
tell the sub-agent to send findings back to the main agent only
Use these four review roles.
Sub-Agent 1: Intent and Regression Review
Review whether the diff matches the intended behavior change without introducing extra behavior drift.
Check for:
Unintended behavior changes outside the stated scope
Broken edge cases or fallback paths
Contract drift between callers and callees
Missing updates to adjacent flows that should change together
This sub-agent is read-only. It must not edit files, apply patches, or make any other workspace changes.
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Sub-Agent 2: Security and Privacy Review
Review the diff for security regressions, privacy risks, and trust-boundary mistakes.
Check for:
Missing or weakened authn or authz checks
Unsafe input handling, injection risks, or validation gaps
Secret, token, or sensitive data exposure
Risky defaults, permission expansion, or trust of unverified data
This sub-agent is read-only. It must not edit files, apply patches, or make any other workspace changes.
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Sub-Agent 3: Performance and Reliability Review
Review the diff for new cost, fragility, or operational risk.
Check for:
Duplicate work, redundant I/O, or unnecessary recomputation
Added work on startup, render, request, or other hot paths
Leaks, missing cleanup, retry storms, or subscription drift
Ordering, race, or failure-handling problems that make the change brittle
This sub-agent is read-only. It must not edit files, apply patches, or make any other workspace changes.
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Sub-Agent 4: Contracts and Coverage Review
Review the diff for compatibility gaps and missing safety nets.
Check for:
API, schema, type, config, or feature-flag mismatches
Migration or backward-compatibility fallout
Missing or weak tests for the changed behavior
Missing logs, metrics, assertions, or error paths that make regressions harder to detect
This sub-agent is read-only. It must not edit files, apply patches, or make any other workspace changes.
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Report only issues that materially affect correctness, security, privacy, reliability, compatibility, or confidence in the change. It is better to miss a nit than to bury the user in low-value noise.
Step 3: Aggregate and Filter Findings
The main agent owns synthesis. Treat sub-agent output as raw review input, not final output.
Merge findings across all four reviewers and filter aggressively:
drop duplicates
drop weak or speculative claims
drop issues that conflict with the stated intent
drop minor style or readability comments unless they hide a real bug or maintenance risk
Normalize surviving findings into this shape:
File and line or nearest symbol
Category: regression, security, reliability, or contracts
Severity: high, medium, or low
Why it matters
Recommended fix or follow-up
Confidence: high, medium, or low
If a reviewer may be correct but the intent is unclear, turn it into an open question instead of a finding.
Step 4: Order the Output
Present findings in this order:
High-severity, high-confidence issues
Medium-severity issues that are likely worth fixing before merge
Lower-severity issues or follow-ups that can wait
Keep the review concise. Findings should be actionable and evidence-backed.
If there are no material issues, say that directly instead of manufacturing feedback.
Step 5: Recommend a Clear Path Forward
After the findings, give the user a short path forward:
what to fix before merge
what to improve if time permits
what can safely be left alone
When helpful, group the path forward into:
fix now
fix soon
optional follow-up
Do not implement fixes as part of this skill. The output is a read-only review plus a prioritized recommendation.
Limitations
Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.