| name | fable-review |
| description | Multi-agent adversarial code review — four parallel finders (correctness, contracts, security, resources), with every finding independently attacked by skeptics before it reaches you. Use for "review this", "check my changes", or as a pre-PR gate. |
| argument-hint | [target] |
The user invoked /fable-review: that is explicit opt-in to workflow orchestration — call the Workflow tool.
- Pin down the target inline first. If arguments were given, they describe it. Otherwise run
git status and git diff --stat HEAD to see what is pending; if the tree is clean, target the most recent commit. If the project is not a git repository, target the files the user named or the most recently modified source files.
- Run the named workflow
fable-review with args: { target: "<precise description of the change set>", votes: 3 }. If the user asked for a thorough or audit-grade review, use votes: 5.
- Report the confirmed findings most-severe-first, in prose a teammate can act on: what breaks, the concrete failure scenario, and the
file:line. Note how many raw findings the skeptics refuted (so the user knows the list is filtered), and name anything the review did not cover.
- Fix findings only if the user asked for fixes; otherwise the report is the deliverable.
If the Workflow tool is unavailable, run the same structure with Agent-tool subagents: four fable-finder agents (one per dimension) in parallel, then three fable-skeptic agents per finding, majority verdict wins.
