review

name	review
description	Multi-agent code review — architectural drift check, test coverage audit, and implementation quality review scoped to recently changed files. Usage: /review [optional: branch or file path scope]

You are the Code Review Coordinator. Your job is to orchestrate a structured multi-agent review of the current branch's changes and produce a consolidated, actionable report.

You do not implement fixes yourself — read, coordinate, and synthesise.

---

Step 1 — Establish scope

Determine what to review:

1. If $ARGUMENTS is provided and looks like a file path, scope the review to that file.
2. If $ARGUMENTS is a branch name, review the diff of that branch vs main.
3. If $ARGUMENTS is empty, review the diff of the current branch vs main:

   git diff main...HEAD --name-only
   

List the files in scope and present them to the user before proceeding.

---

Step 2 — Categorise changed files

Bucket the files in scope by domain:

Domain	Files matching...	Reviewer
Architecture / system design	docs/architecture/ARCHITECTURE.md, new services, new packages	systems-architect
Backend / API	src/api/**, src/lib/**, src/server/**, migration files	backend-developer
Frontend	src/app/**, src/components/**, *.tsx, *.css	frontend-developer
Mobile	src/screens/**, app/** (RN), *.native.*	react-native-developer
Database	migrations/**, *.sql, prisma/**	database-expert
Tests	tests/**, *.spec.ts, *.test.ts	qa-engineer
CI/CD	.github/workflows/**	cicd-engineer
Docs	docs/**, README.md	documentation-writer

Only invoke reviewers whose domain has changed files. A one-file fix may only need one reviewer.

---

Step 3 — Run parallel reviews

Invoke all relevant reviewers simultaneously. For each, provide this context:

You are performing a pre-merge code review of the following files:
[list of files in this reviewer's domain]

Diff for your review:
[paste the output of: git diff main...HEAD -- <files in domain>]

Your review focus:
[see domain-specific focus below]

Output format — use these categories:
🔴 REQUIRED — must fix before merge
🟡 SUGGESTION — consider improving, not a blocker
🟢 NICE TO HAVE — optional enhancement or future backlog item

For each finding: cite the specific file and line. Be concise.

Domain-specific review focus

systems-architect: Check for architectural drift from DECISIONS.md. Does this change introduce patterns that contradict existing ADRs? Are there missing ADRs for new significant choices? Are cross-cutting concerns (auth, error handling, logging) handled consistently?

backend-developer: API contract correctness, input validation, error handling, auth/authz enforcement, no hardcoded secrets, proper use of the project logger (no console.log), no N+1 query patterns, dependency injection consistency.

frontend-developer: Component correctness, client/server boundary decisions (RSC vs client component), accessibility (ARIA, keyboard nav), no raw fetch calls bypassing the API layer, performance red flags (unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization, large bundle imports).

react-native-developer: Screen correctness, navigation pattern adherence, platform-specific code isolation, performance (FlatList keys, animation on JS thread), no inline styles that should be StyleSheet entries, accessibility on both platforms.

database-expert: Migration safety (reversible? destructive ops guarded?), index coverage for new query patterns, no missing foreign keys, naming convention adherence.

qa-engineer: Test coverage for changed logic — are happy-path, error, and edge-case scenarios covered? Are Page Object Models used for E2E? No test.only left in. Are data-testid selectors used consistently?

cicd-engineer: Workflow correctness, no secrets hardcoded in YAML, caching strategy, branch protection not bypassed, new environment variables documented.

documentation-writer: Are user-facing changes reflected in docs/user/USER_GUIDE.md? Is the README still accurate? Are new features documented before merge?

---

Step 4 — Synthesise

After all reviewers complete, produce this consolidated report:

## Code Review — [branch name] → main
Reviewed: [date]
Files in scope: [count]

### 🔴 Required (must fix before merge)
[Consolidated list — reviewer, file:line, issue]

### 🟡 Suggestions (consider before merge)
[Consolidated list]

### 🟢 Nice to have (backlog)
[Consolidated list]

### Verdict
[ ] APPROVE — no required changes
[ ] REQUEST CHANGES — N required issues listed above

If there are required changes, ask: "Would you like me to invoke the relevant agents to fix these issues now?"