| name | cf-review |
| description | Dispatch code review to a subagent. Use when the user wants code reviewed — e.g. "review this", "review my changes", "check the code", "look over this", "code review", "any issues with this?", "is this code ok?", "review before merge", "review the diff", "what do you think of these changes?". Also triggers on requests to review specific files, commits, or branches.
|
| created | 2026-02-17T00:00:00.000Z |
| updated | 2026-07-06T00:00:00.000Z |
/cf-review
CLI Requirement: OPTIONAL — Uses the memory MCP from coding-friend-cli for fast indexed search and storage. Without the CLI: falls back to grep over docs/memory/ and direct file writes. Full functionality preserved, slower memory recall. See CLI requirements.
✨ CODING FRIEND → /cf-review activated
Review the code changes for: $ARGUMENTS
Auto-Triggered
This skill is automatically invoked by other skills — you don't always need to run it manually:
/cf-plan — runs /cf-review after all implementation tasks complete/cf-fix — runs /cf-review after the fix is verified/cf-optimize — runs /cf-review after the optimization is measured and verified
Workflow
Step 0: Custom Guide
Custom guide — auto-loaded below (if the raw command shows instead of its output, run it yourself):
bash "<plugin-root>/lib/load-custom-guide.sh" cf-review
If output is not empty, integrate returned sections: ## Before → before first step, ## Rules → apply throughout, ## After → after final step.
Step 1: Identify the target
- If
$ARGUMENTS is empty, review all uncommitted changes (git diff + git diff --staged)
- If
$ARGUMENTS is a file path, review that file
- If
$ARGUMENTS is a commit range (e.g., HEAD~3..HEAD), review those commits
- If
$ARGUMENTS is a natural language description (e.g., "the auth logic changes"), review all uncommitted changes but focus the review on the described area — filter findings to only report issues relevant to that description
- If
$ARGUMENTS contains --deep or --quick, use that mode (override auto-detection)
Antigravity host behavior:
- This skill already runs inside Google Antigravity. Ignore
--with-codex, its --codex alias, and review.withCodex; do not launch a nested codex review subprocess.
- Run the Coding Friend multi-agent review below.
Step 2: Gather the diff
bash "<plugin-root>/skills/cf-review/scripts/gather-diff.sh"
Step 3: Assess change size
Determine review depth. Run the bundled script (one permission prompt instead of many):
bash "<plugin-root>/skills/cf-review/scripts/assess-changes.sh"
The script prints KEY=value lines: FILES_CHANGED, LINES_CHANGED, SENSITIVE, CHANGED_FILES, and MODE.
Use the MODE value directly — no further calculation needed.
| Mode | Condition | Behavior |
|---|
| QUICK | ≤3 files AND ≤50 lines AND no sensitive paths | Layer 3: secrets + obvious injection only. Skip context research. |
| STANDARD | 4–10 files OR 51–300 lines | Full 5-layer review. All security phases, concise. |
| DEEP | >10 files OR >300 lines OR sensitive paths touched | Full 5-layer + extended security. Data flow tracing. Exploit scenarios. |
If SENSITIVE > 0, always escalate to DEEP regardless of size.
Step 4: Gather context (conditional — based on review mode)
-
QUICK mode: Skip this step entirely.
-
STANDARD mode: Search memory only (if memory_search tool is available). Call memory_search with: { "query": "<area being reviewed — e.g. auth, API, database>", "limit": 5 }. Use results as context hints for the review.
-
DEEP mode: Launch the cf-explorer agent to understand callers, dependencies, and data flows around the changed files. Call invoke_subagent with agent cf-explorer. Pass:
Explore the codebase context around these changed files: [list changed files]
Questions to answer:
- What calls these files/functions? (callers, entry points)
- What do these files depend on? (downstream effects)
- What conventions and patterns exist in the surrounding code?
- Are there related tests that should be checked?
Note: cf-explorer already checks memory internally — do NOT call memory_search separately when using cf-explorer.
Memory and explorer results are hints — always verify against actual code.
Step 5: Read changed files
Read changed files in full — do not review only the diff, understand the context.
Step 6: Dispatch the cf-reviewer agent
Call invoke_subagent with agent cf-reviewer. Pass the full context:
Review mode: [QUICK | STANDARD | DEEP]
Diff:
[full diff from Step 2]
Changed files (full content):
[full content of each changed file from Step 5]
Context (if gathered in Step 4):
[memory search results or cf-explorer findings, if any]
Run the review now. Return the unified report in the 🚨/⚠️/💡/📋 format.
Wait for the agent to return its report.
Step 7: Collect the report
The result of Step 6 is the final formatted report (Critical / Important / Suggestions / Summary). Do not reformat or restructure it; use it as-is in Step 10.
Step 8: Mark review complete and display status
bash "<plugin-root>/skills/cf-review/scripts/mark-reviewed.sh"
Step 9: Smart capture (conditional — only if memory_store MCP tool is available)
If the review found architectural insights or recurring patterns worth preserving, call memory_store with:
- type: "fact"
- importance: 3
- source: "auto-capture"
- title/description/tags/content summarizing the insight
Skip if the review was routine with no notable findings.
Step 10: Final output
Display the full report followed by the status banner in a single message.
IMPORTANT: The structured report from step 8 and the banner below MUST appear together in the same final response. Do NOT split them across separate messages. This ensures the complete review is visible in the last message.
Display the cf-reviewer's report first, then append the appropriate banner. When any external source contributed, add a · Reviewed by: <in-session> + … suffix listing the in-session reviewer plus each external agent/codex that actually contributed (e.g. · Reviewed by: Claude + Codex + Gemini). Label the in-session reviewer by the HOST value from the session bootstrap context, capitalized (claude → Claude, codex → Codex); if no HOST: line is present, use the neutral label In-session AI — do NOT hardcode Claude, since the assistant running this skill may be another host (Grok, Cursor, …). Omit the suffix when only the in-session reviewer ran.
Skip this step's banner when out=true — Step 6.7 already showed the export panel.
If NO critical issues were found:
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ ✅ Code Review Complete ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
Mode: [QUICK|STANDARD|DEEP] · No blocking issues found.
You're clear to commit. Run /cf-commit when ready.
If critical issues were found — show the banner, then wait for the user's answer:
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ ⚠️ Review Complete — Action Needed ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
Mode: [QUICK|STANDARD|DEEP] · [N] critical issue(s) must be resolved before committing.
Resolve the critical issues listed above. Shall I help fix them now?
