team-review

name	team-review
description	Review Harbangan plans and code with read-only advisory agents. Use `--plan <path>` for domain-driven plan review, and `--code [target]` for fixed reviewer-dimension code review with domain-advisor consultation.

Team Review

Report findings only. Do not auto-fix issues unless the user explicitly pivots from review to implementation.

Workflow

1. Parse mode explicitly. Supported forms:
   • team-review --plan <path>
   • team-review --code
   • team-review --code <file-or-dir>
   • team-review --code <diff-range>
   • team-review --code <pr-number>
2. If --plan is selected:
   • require an explicit file or directory path
   • if the path is a directory, review the newest *.md file in that directory
   • read references/plan-review.md
   • spawn the relevant read-only domain agents from .qwen/agents/
   • ask each agent to review feasibility, ownership, dependency order, verification, omissions, and contradictions with repo conventions
3. If --code is selected:
   • with no explicit target, review the current branch diff against the default branch
   • otherwise resolve the target as a file, directory, diff range, or PR number
   • read references/review-dimensions.md
   • always spawn these 5 fixed reviewer dimensions:
     • security
     • performance
     • architecture
     • testing
     • accessibility
   • instruct each fixed reviewer to consult only the relevant read-only domain advisors from .qwen/agents/
   • require every fixed reviewer to return either concrete findings or an explicit no findings in my dimension result
4. Fixed-reviewer consultation rules for --code:
   • security consults backend, devops, and frontend when auth, sessions, or browser security are involved
   • performance consults backend, database, frontend, and devops when runtime or infrastructure behavior matters
   • architecture consults backend, frontend, database, and devops depending on touched layers
   • testing consults backend-qa and frontend-qa
   • accessibility consults frontend and frontend-qa
   • document-writer is consult-only when a code change creates user-facing config, docs, or communication implications
5. Require each fixed reviewer to cite concrete evidence with file locations, note which domain advisor(s) it consulted, and avoid style-only commentary unless it hides a real bug.
6. Consolidate duplicate findings and present the report ordered by severity.
7. If you ran automated checks, include their status. If you did not, say so.

Output

• Findings first, with severity and location.
• For --code, include Dimension: and Consulted domain agent(s): for each finding.
• Then open questions or testing gaps.
• Then a brief summary only if it adds value.

Constraints

• If there are no findings, state that explicitly and mention residual risks or missing verification.
• --plan without a path is invalid; require the user to supply a plan target.
• Use the custom agents as read-only advisors only. They must not write files or propose that they made changes.
• --plan remains domain-driven; the fixed 5-dimension reviewer model applies only to --code.
• For --code, all 5 fixed reviewers always run even when some dimensions are ultimately no-ops.
• Do not fabricate active reviewer state outside the current conversation.