cross-review

name	cross-review
description	Use when you are the reviewing agent in a multi-agent collaboration and need to review another agent's code changes

Cross-Review Protocol

You are reviewing another AI agent's code changes. Your review must be thorough, specific, and actionable.

Process

1. Read the handoff file — understand what was done and what to focus on
2. Run git pull to get latest commits
3. Run git diff <commit-sha>~1..<commit-sha> to see the actual diff
4. Read changed files in full for context (not just the diff)
5. Write your review to .collab/reviews/
6. Append to .collab/log.md
7. Set your status to waiting-for-human in manifest

Review Checklist

Correctness:

• Does the code do what the handoff says it does?
• Are there logic errors, off-by-ones, or missed edge cases?
• Does it handle errors consistently with the codebase?

Consistency:

• Does it follow existing patterns in the codebase?
• Are naming conventions respected?
• Does it match decisions recorded in .collab/context.md?

Completeness:

• Are all files mentioned in the handoff actually changed?
• Is anything missing that the handoff promised?
• Are there untested paths?

Risk:

• Could this break existing functionality?
• Are there security concerns?
• Any performance implications?

Writing the Review

Use this template:

# Review NNN: [Your Agent ID] reviews commit [SHA]
- **verdict:** approved | changes-requested | needs-discussion
- **handoff:** handoffs/NNN-x-to-y.md

## Issues
1. **[blocking]** file:line — what's wrong and how to fix it
2. **[nit]** file:line — suggestion (non-blocking)

## Strengths
- What was done well (be specific)

Verdict rules:

• approved — no blocking issues. Nits are optional to address.
• changes-requested — at least one [blocking] issue. Must be fixed before proceeding.
• needs-discussion — you found something that requires human judgment. Explain clearly.

Key Rules

• Never approve if you found blocking issues — even under time pressure
• Be specific: file path + line number + what's wrong + suggested fix
• Acknowledge good work in Strengths — collaboration works better with positive signal
• If the handoff is unclear, write needs-discussion and explain what's missing
• Read .collab/context.md before reviewing — decisions made there are requirements