| name | wf-review |
| description | Use for /wf-review in Claude Code or OpenCode, $wf-review or /skills wf-review in Codex, peer review, second opinion, cross-runtime review, or independent reviewer subagent review. |
WF Review Adapter
Prefer an independent peer runtime for review. If no other CLI is available,
use the installed reviewer role as a separate subagent context. Never label a
same-runtime reviewer or bounded role pass as cross-model review.
Invocation
- Claude Code: use
/wf-review [focus] or select the wf-review skill.
- Codex CLI or IDE: use
$wf-review or /skills then choose wf-review.
- OpenCode: use
/wf-review [focus]; the .opencode/commands/wf-review.md
wrapper routes here.
Authority
The main agent is the controller. It owns final decisions, accepted/rejected
findings, fixes, release claims, and user-facing recommendations. Review
agents only provide evidence-backed suggestions.
Cache Discipline
Follow Harness/specs/runtime/context-loading.md#Cache-First Context Contract: build review
context from changed-file lists, ACs, validation evidence, and targeted diffs;
avoid pasting unrelated history, full transcripts, or unused tool schemas into
the review prompt.
Runtime Selection
- Build one review prompt containing the relevant diff, task acceptance
criteria, changed-file list, validation evidence, and the review dimensions.
- Detect available CLIs (
claude, codex, opencode) with the platform's
normal command lookup.
- Prefer a CLI that is not the current runtime. If several exist, prefer a
different model/provider when known; otherwise use the first available in
the table below.
- If no other CLI exists, dispatch the installed
reviewer role as a separate
subagent context. For WF-MAX or broad/high-risk changes, use
review-manager to split spec/code/security/performance dimensions when the
runtime supports nested subagents.
- If neither a peer CLI nor a subagent surface exists, warn that WF-REVIEW is
degraded and perform only a controller review; do not count it as
independent review.
| Current runtime | Preferred peer CLI | Secondary peer CLI | Same-runtime fallback |
|---|
| Claude Code | codex exec "<review prompt>" | opencode run --agent reviewer --dir . "<review prompt>" | Claude reviewer subagent |
| Codex | claude -p "<review prompt>" | opencode run --agent reviewer --dir . "<review prompt>" | Codex subagent or bounded reviewer role pass |
| OpenCode | claude -p "<review prompt>" | codex exec "<review prompt>" | opencode run --agent reviewer --dir . "<review prompt>" or OpenCode reviewer subagent |
| Unknown | any available peer CLI, preferring claude, then codex, then opencode | next available peer CLI | installed reviewer role subagent |
OpenCode note: opencode run [message..] is the non-interactive CLI path and
--agent reviewer selects the installed .opencode/agents/reviewer.md role.
Review Dimensions
Cover correctness, security, architecture, performance, and tests. Classify
findings as Critical, High, Medium, or Low. Return raw peer or subagent output
first, then the controller's severity-classified synthesis.
Reviewer Role Fallback
When using a same-runtime subagent fallback, dispatch a real role packet instead
of an ad hoc prompt:
Role: reviewer
AgentName: reviewer
Mode: read-only
Objective: review the current diff for correctness, security, architecture,
performance, tests, and spec/AC compliance
Read set: changed files, tests, task PLAN/PROGRESS, Harness/specs/runtime/agent-workflow.md,
Harness/specs/runtime/subagents.md, Harness/specs/runtime/dispatch.md, architecture docs when affected
Write set: none
Forbidden: file edits, git mutations, formatting-only advice, ungrounded claims
ReturnSchema: findings by severity, file/line refs, missing verification,
open questions, closeout recommendation
If the runtime exposes review-manager, use it only when the diff is broad
enough to benefit from multiple reviewer dimensions. The controller must
deduplicate reviewer output and decide what to accept.
Context
Include the relevant diff, Harness/project/architecture.md when architecture is in
scope, and any task acceptance criteria. If the diff is too large, ask for a
narrower scope before invoking a peer CLI or reviewer subagent.
