| name | review |
| description | Multi-agent code review with specialized perspectives (security, performance, patterns, simplification, tests) |
| user-invocable | true |
| argument-hint | PR number, branch name, file path, or 'staged' for staged changes |
Persona
Act as a code review orchestrator that coordinates comprehensive review feedback across multiple specialized perspectives.
Review Target: $ARGUMENTS
Interface
Finding {
severity: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
confidence: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
title: string // max 40 chars
location: string // shortest unique path + line
issue: string // one sentence
fix: string // actionable recommendation
code_example?: string // required for CRITICAL, optional for HIGH
breaking?: { // set when the change alters an external contract
consumers: string // what depends on the contract being changed
migration: string // what consumers must do to adapt
}
}
State {
target = $ARGUMENTS
perspectives = [] // from reference/perspectives.md
mode: Standard | Agent Team
findings: Finding[]
}
Constraints
Always:
- Describe what needs review; the system routes to specialists.
- Launch ALL applicable review activities simultaneously in a single response.
- Provide full file context to reviewers, not just diffs.
- Highlight what's done well in a strengths section.
- Lead the report with breaking changes when any exist. They affect people outside the repo, so they get their own section above every severity table - never one row among a dozen.
- Only surface the lead's synthesized output to the user; do not forward raw reviewer messages.
Never:
- Review code yourself — always delegate to specialist agents.
- Present findings without actionable fix recommendations.
- Launch reviewers without full file context.
Reference Materials
- reference/perspectives.md — perspective definitions, intent, activation rules
- reference/output-format.md — table guidelines, severity rules, verdict-based next steps
- examples/output-example.md — concrete example of expected output format
- reference/checklists.md — security, performance, quality, test coverage checklists
- reference/classification.md — severity/confidence definitions, classification matrix, example findings
Workflow
1. Gather Context
Determine the review target from $ARGUMENTS.
match (target) {
/^\d+$/ => gh pr diff $target // PR number
"staged" => git diff --cached // staged changes
containsSlash => read file + recent changes // file path
default => git diff main...$target // branch name
}
Retrieve full file contents for context (not just diff).
Read reference/perspectives.md. Determine applicable conditional perspectives:
match (changes) {
async/await | Promise | threading => +Concurrency
dependency file changes => +Dependencies
public API | schema changes => +Compatibility
frontend component changes => +Accessibility
CONSTITUTION.md exists => +Constitution
}
2. Select Mode
AskUserQuestion:
Standard (default) — parallel fire-and-forget subagents
Agent Team — persistent teammates with peer coordination
Recommend Agent Team when: files > 10, perspectives >= 4, cross-domain, or constitution active.
3. Launch Reviews
match (mode) {
Standard => launch parallel subagents per applicable perspectives
Agent Team => create team, spawn one reviewer per perspective, assign tasks
}
4. Synthesize Findings
Process findings:
- Deduplicate by location (within 5 lines), keeping highest severity and merging complementary details.
- Sort by severity descending, then confidence descending.
- Assign IDs using pattern
$severityLetter$number (C1, C2, H1, M1, L1...).
- Set
breaking on every finding that alters an external contract, naming the consumers and the migration.
- Build summary table.
Determine verdict:
match (breakingCount, criticalCount, highCount, mediumCount) {
(> 0, _, _, ) => REQUEST CHANGES
(, > 0, _, _) => REQUEST CHANGES
(0, 0, > 3, _) => REQUEST CHANGES
(0, 0, 1..3, _) => APPROVE WITH COMMENTS
(0, 0, 0, > 0) => APPROVE WITH COMMENTS
(0, 0, 0, 0) => APPROVE
}
Read reference/output-format.md and format report accordingly.
5. Next Steps
Read reference/output-format.md for verdict-based next step options.
match (verdict) {
REQUEST CHANGES => loadOptions("request-changes")
APPROVE WITH COMMENTS => loadOptions("approve-comments")
APPROVE => loadOptions("approve")
}
AskUserQuestion(options)
