council-review

name	council-review
description	Multi-model code review with structured feedback using LLM Council peer evaluation. Use for PR reviews, code quality checks, or implementation review. Keywords: code review, PR, pull request, quality check, peer review, feedback
license	Apache-2.0
compatibility	llm-council-core >= 0.33, mcp >= 1.0
metadata	{"category":"code-review","domain":"software-engineering","council-version":"0.33","author":"amiable-dev","repository":"https://github.com/amiable-dev/llm-council"}
allowed-tools	Read Grep Glob mcp:llm-council/verify mcp:llm-council/audit

Council Code Review Skill

Get multiple AI perspectives on code changes with structured, actionable feedback.

When to Use

• Review pull requests before merging
• Get code quality feedback on implementations
• Identify potential issues across multiple dimensions
• Validate changes against coding standards

Workflow

1. Prepare Input: Provide file paths or git diff
2. Invoke Review: Call mcp:llm-council/verify with code-review rubric
3. Process Feedback: Receive structured scores and issue list
4. Address Issues: Fix blocking issues before proceeding

Parameters

Parameter	Type	Default	Description
snapshot_id	string	required	Git commit SHA for reproducibility
file_paths	list	null	List of files to review (full file analysis)
git_diff	string	null	Unified diff format for change-focused review
rubric_focus	string	null	Focus area: "Security", "Performance", etc.
tier	string	"high"	Confidence tier: "quick", "balanced", "high", "reasoning"

Tier Selection Guide

Tier	Use When	Timeout
balanced	Routine code reviews	~90s
high	Quality-critical reviews (default)	~180s
reasoning	Complex architectural or security reviews	~600s

Input Formats

Supports both:

• file_paths: List of files to review (full file analysis)
• git_diff: Unified diff format for change-focused review
• snapshot_id: Git commit SHA (required for reproducibility)

Rubric (ADR-016)

Dimension	Weight	Focus
Accuracy	35%	Correctness, no bugs, logic errors
Completeness	20%	All requirements addressed
Clarity	20%	Readable, maintainable code
Conciseness	15%	No unnecessary complexity
Relevance	10%	Addresses stated requirements

Output Schema

{
  "verdict": "pass|fail|unclear",
  "confidence": 0.82,
  "rubric_scores": {
    "accuracy": 7.5,
    "completeness": 8.0,
    "clarity": 9.0,
    "conciseness": 8.5,
    "relevance": 9.0
  },
  "blocking_issues": [
    {
      "severity": "major",
      "file": "src/api.py",
      "line": 42,
      "message": "Missing input validation"
    }
  ],
  "rationale": "Overall, the code is well-structured...",
  "partial": false,
  "timeout_fired": false,
  "completed_stages": ["stage1", "stage2", "stage3"]
}

Timeout Behavior (ADR-040)

If timeout_fired: true, the review timed out. Check completed_stages to see progress. Consider using a faster tier or reducing the number of files.

Example Usage

# Review specific files
llm-council gate --snapshot abc123 --file-paths src/main.py src/utils.py

# Review git diff
llm-council gate --snapshot $(git rev-parse HEAD)  # reviews the snapshot; pass --file-paths to scope

# Review with custom focus
llm-council gate --snapshot $(git rev-parse HEAD) --rubric-focus Security --file-paths src/auth.py

# Deep reasoning review for complex changes
llm-council gate --snapshot $(git rev-parse HEAD) --tier reasoning --rubric-focus Security

Progressive Disclosure

• Level 1: This metadata (~200 tokens)
• Level 2: Full instructions above (~800 tokens)
• Level 3: See references/code-review-rubric.md for detailed scoring anchors

Related Skills

• council-verify: General verification
• council-gate: CI/CD quality gate