メニュー
Two-pass code review — first checks spec compliance (did we build what was asked?), then code quality (is it built well?). Use after implementing features or before merging.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use before any creative work, new features, architecture changes, or behavior modifications — explores intent, constraints, and design before implementation begins
Execute an implementation plan using the coordinator pattern — per task, dispatch implementer → spec-reviewer → code-quality-reviewer; per wave, synthesize and verify. Parallel where independent, sequential where dependent. Use when you have a plan ready to execute.
Use during brainstorming when visual content would help — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams. Zero-dependency, no server required.
Systematic debugging with hypothesis tracking, evidence collection, and checkpoint management. Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior — diagnoses before fixing.
Use when implementation is complete and you need to merge, create a PR, keep, or discard a branch — handles integration and cleanup after development work
Use when creating new Athena skills, editing existing skills, or building skills for any Claude Code plugin — guides skill authoring with TDD validation
| name | athena-review |
| description | Two-pass code review — first checks spec compliance (did we build what was asked?), then code quality (is it built well?). Use after implementing features or before merging. |
Two-pass code review. Order matters — spec compliance first, quality second. No point polishing code that doesn't meet requirements.
Check the implementation against the spec/plan:
docs/plans/, docs/specs/, docs/athena/specs/, or ask the user)Spec Compliance
═══════════════
[DONE] Requirement 1 description
[DONE] Requirement 2 description
[MISSING] Requirement 3 description — not found in codebase
[EXTRA] Feature X — not in spec, consider removing
Result: 8/10 requirements met, 1 missing, 1 extra
If anything is MISSING → stop here. Fix spec gaps before reviewing quality. There's no point reviewing code quality on incomplete work.
Only run this after Pass 1 is fully green (all DONE, no MISSING).
Check for concrete issues, not style preferences:
CRITICAL (must fix):
IMPORTANT (should fix):
MINOR (optional):
Output:
Code Quality
════════════
CRITICAL: [n] issues
IMPORTANT: [n] issues
MINOR: [n] issues
[CRITICAL] File:line — Description of issue
[IMPORTANT] File:line — Description of issue
...
Verdict: [APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES]