| name | review-swarm |
| description | Local, free, multi-specialist review of the working diff using parallel Claude subagents, then adversarial verification of every finding, dedup, and a ranked report with file:line evidence. Specialists: correctness, security/trust boundaries, data/perf (N+1, transactions), architecture-altitude, ponytail-simplicity, and tests/failure-paths. Complements the built-in /code-review (this is local + tailored; /code-review ultra is the cloud one). Use when the user says "review-swarm", "swarm review", "multi-agent review", or "deep review this diff".
|
| argument-hint | [optional: 'staged' | 'branch' | a path] |
Review Swarm
Review the working changes with a panel of specialists in parallel, then keep
only the findings that survive scrutiny. Free and local (Claude subagents).
Steps
- Scope the diff. Default: working tree vs the default branch.
staged →
git diff --staged; branch → vs merge-base with main; a path → limit to
it. Read the changed hunks and enough surrounding code to judge them.
- Fan out specialists — in parallel. Spawn the reviewers below with the
Agent tool, all in one message so they run concurrently. Give each the
diff plus the files it needs and its single lens. Each returns findings as:
severity · file:line · what · why · suggested fix.
- Correctness — logic errors, edge cases, null/empty, off-by-one,
concurrency/races.
- Security & trust boundaries — authz/authn (JWT), input validation at
boundaries, injection, IDOR, leaked secrets.
- Data & performance — N+1 (JPA/Hibernate, SQLAlchemy), missing indexes,
unbounded queries, transaction scope, lazy-load traps.
- Architecture & altitude — does it fit the domain model? are invariants
enforced at the core? wrong layer, leaky abstraction.
- Simplicity (ponytail lens) — over-engineering, premature abstraction,
dead code, a stdlib/native one-liner that replaces the change.
- Tests & failure paths — non-trivial logic with no test, untested
failure paths, error handling that could lose data.
- Adversarially verify. For each non-trivial finding, spawn a verifier that
tries to refute it: is it real, reproducible, not already handled
elsewhere? Drop findings that don't survive. Default to dropping when
uncertain.
- Synthesize. Dedup overlaps, then rank: Blockers → Should-fix → Nits,
each with file:line and a one-line fix. Close with a short "what's solid".
Rules
- Every finding cites a real
file:line from the diff. No speculative "you
might consider" padding.
- A dimension with nothing to flag gets one line ("Security: no issues"), not a
manufactured nit.
- Don't fix here — this is review. Offer to hand the ranked list to an
implementer (or to
/code-review --fix) if the user wants changes applied.
Relationship to built-ins
This is the local, free, your-stack-tailored swarm. For the heavyweight
cloud version, /code-review ultra runs specialists in the cloud; plain
/code-review is a single-pass diff review. Reach for this skill when you want
parallel local specialists with adversarial verification and no cloud round
trip.
Done when
The user has a short, ranked, evidence-backed list where every item is a real,
verified problem in the diff — and knows what's clean.
Global rules
Apply on every run — canonical home ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md:
- Ground everything. Only what's given or verified; never invent files, APIs, or facts. Unknown → say "I don't know" or state the assumption.
- No tokenmaxing. Lead with the answer; keep an output budget; no filler, no restating the question.
- Agent discipline. Read before you edit; small reversible changes; ask when blocked, don't guess; report failures honestly.
- Commits are the user's alone. Author = the user; never add an AI co-author or
Co-Authored-By/credit line, and don't mention AI in commit messages.
