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