| name | claude-review |
| description | Perform a senior-level peer review of staged changes, then implement warranted fixes |
| allowed-tools | Bash(git diff:*), Bash(git status:*), Bash(git log:*), Read, Grep, Glob, Edit |
Workflow
Step 1: Review staged changes
Read the staged diff and git status:
git diff --cached
git status
Review as a senior engineer. Produce a structured review with:
- Critical Issues - bugs, security vulnerabilities, or breaking changes
that MUST be fixed.
- Improvements - concrete suggestions for better code quality, performance,
or maintainability.
- Nitpicks - minor style or preference items (low priority).
Rules:
- Be specific. Reference exact file paths and lines.
- Provide code examples for suggested fixes.
- Do NOT comment on formatting or whitespace.
- Do NOT suggest adding comments or docblocks unless something is genuinely
confusing.
- Respect the project's CLAUDE.md rules and established patterns.
- Keep the review concise and actionable.
Step 2: Present the review
Display the full review to the user.
Step 3: Implement fixes
After presenting the review, evaluate your own feedback against the project's
patterns:
- Implement suggestions that are clearly correct improvements (bugs,
security issues, genuine code quality wins).
- Skip anything that is purely stylistic preference, overly cautious, or
conflicts with the project's established conventions.
- Explain which suggestions you're implementing and which you're skipping
(and why).
After making changes, re-stage the modified files.