review-board

name	review-board
description	Audit protocol for the self-correction loop — severity rubric, auditor selection by file type, finding format, and convergence criteria. Background knowledge for /review, /implement, /production-audit.
user-invocable	false
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, Bash

review-board — Audit & self-correction protocol

Defines how orchestrating commands audit a diff with a panel of specialist auditor subagents and drive the self-correction loop until the change converges.

Auditor selection (by what the diff touches)

The orchestrator runs only the relevant auditors, in parallel, each on the same diff:

Files touched	Auditors to run
backend/** (routers/services/repos)	code-reviewer, security-auditor, performance-auditor, architecture-reviewer
Concurrency-sensitive backend (counters/quotas, async fan-out, background tasks, external calls, sessions/pools)	+ reliability-auditor
backend/models/**, alembic/**	architecture-reviewer, performance-auditor (+ migration-safety in production-readiness-analyst)
backend/tools/ai/**, LangChain/LangGraph code	code-reviewer, security-auditor (prompt-injection), architecture-reviewer, reliability-auditor (timeouts/fallbacks/checkpointer concurrency)
frontend/**	code-reviewer, accessibility-auditor, performance-auditor
docker/**, Helm charts, deploy/**, backend/tasks/**, routers/controls/**	reliability-auditor, production-readiness-analyst
requirements*.txt, pyproject.toml, package.json	dependency-auditor, security-auditor
Any production-bound change (full sweep)	+ production-readiness-analyst, reliability-auditor

Always include code-reviewer for code changes. Skip auditors whose domain the diff does not touch (don't run accessibility-auditor on a pure backend diff).

Severity rubric

Severity	Meaning	Loop behavior
CRITICAL	Security hole, data loss, broken auth/RBAC, crash, wrong result	MUST fix before commit
HIGH	Real bug, layering violation, N+1 on a hot path, missing validation	MUST fix before commit
MEDIUM	Maintainability, missing test, minor perf, a11y gap	Fix if cheap; else log as follow-up
LOW / INFO	Style, naming, optional improvement	Optional; note only

Finding format (every auditor returns this)

[SEVERITY] <short title>
- file: path/to/file.py:42
- problem: <what is wrong and why it matters>
- fix: <concrete change — not "improve this">

Auditors are read-only. They never edit; they report. The orchestrator feeds findings back to the implementing expert.

Self-correction loop

round = 0
implement step  →  audit (parallel auditors)
while (CRITICAL or HIGH findings) and round < MAX_ROUNDS:
    re-invoke the SAME expert with the findings as the task
    re-audit ONLY the changed files
    round += 1
if still CRITICAL/HIGH after MAX_ROUNDS:
    stop, surface remaining findings to the user, mark step needs-revision
else:
    proceed to the commit confirmation gate

• MAX_ROUNDS = 3 by default. Convergence is expected within 1-2 rounds; 3 unresolved rounds signals a design problem worth escalating to the user.
• Pass the full finding text to the expert, not a summary — the expert needs file:line and the concrete fix.
• Re-audit only the files the fix changed, to keep the loop fast and focused.
• MEDIUM/LOW findings never block the gate; collect them into the step's result and surface them in the final report.

Synthesis (for /review and /production-audit)

After auditors return, the orchestrator deduplicates overlapping findings (same file:line from multiple auditors), sorts by severity, and presents one consolidated report. For /production-audit, also assign a rough effort (S/M/L) per finding and produce a prioritized roadmap (severity × effort).