| name | review |
| description | Review completed work against success criteria and flag issues |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| argument-hint | ["what to review - file","feature","or recent work"] |
Review
Evaluate completed work against its success criteria. Find problems before they compound.
Input
What to review: $ARGUMENTS
If no arguments, review whatever was most recently implemented in the conversation.
Process
Step 1: Pre-check
- If
/verify hasn't been run on the target, suggest running it first — /verify catches completeness issues, /review catches quality issues. Different concerns.
- Read relevant COMP files (CLAUDE.md for conventions, MEMORY.md for gotchas)
- Identify the success criteria (from /plan-task output, PLAN.md, or conversation)
Step 2: Launch Review
Read @review-dimensions.md for what to check based on the type of work (code, data, writing).
Launch the review using a fresh-context subagent (use the code-reviewer agent persona for code). The reviewer should NOT share the implementer's assumptions.
Step 3: Present Findings
Read @output-format.md for how to organize findings.
Step 4: Escalation Check
- For significant reviews, consider suggesting
/dialectic-review for adversarial depth
- If the review surfaces architectural concerns, suggest
/dialectic-review --premortem before proceeding with fixes
Rules
Read @rules.md for review rules and gotchas.