| name | review |
| description | Use when the user asks to review the current branch, check code quality, run a code review, or assess changes before merging. |
Run a comprehensive review of the current branch by orchestrating three review passes in parallel, then aggregating their findings.
Step 0 — check optional reviewers are installed
Run the following to check which plugins are available:
claude plugin list --json 2>/dev/null | python3 -c "
import json,sys
installed = {p['id'] for p in json.loads(sys.stdin.read()).get('installed', [])}
for pid in ['pr-review-toolkit@claude-plugins-official','code-review@claude-plugins-official']:
print('ok' if pid in installed else 'missing', pid)
"
For any plugin reported as missing, tell the user:
To get the full 3-reviewer report, install the missing plugin(s) and reload:
/plugin install <name>@claude-plugins-official
/reload-plugins
Continuing with the reviewer(s) that are available.
Do not block the review — proceed with whichever reviewers are present. The diff review always runs regardless.
Step 1 — run all three reviews in parallel
Invoke all three of the following simultaneously using the Agent tool (one agent per review), passing the same PR or branch context to each:
-
Diff review — run git diff main...HEAD, then for each changed file assess:
- Correctness — does the logic do what it claims?
- Security — injection, XSS, auth bypass, secrets-in-code?
- Performance — N+1 queries, blocking calls, memory leaks?
- Readability — confusing names, missing context, overly complex logic?
- Tests — are changes covered? Are existing tests likely to break?
-
PR Review Toolkit — invoke the pr-review-toolkit:review-pr skill using the Skill tool. Skip if not installed (noted in Step 0).
-
Official code-review — invoke the code-review:code-review skill using the Skill tool. Skip if not installed (noted in Step 0).
Step 2 — aggregate findings
Collect results from all three passes and deduplicate. Present a single unified report:
Must fix
Blockers that should prevent merge (any finding rated critical/blocker across any reviewer).
Should fix
Non-blocking improvements worth addressing before merge.
Nit
Style or minor quality observations (low priority).
Positive observations
What the reviewers agreed was well done.
If there are no issues in a category, state "None found."
Step 3 — recommendation
End with a single overall recommendation: Approve, Request changes, or Needs discussion.
Note which reviewers agreed and which (if any) diverged.
Keep the final report concise and actionable. Reference specific file paths and line numbers.
