| name | code-review |
| description | Review local code changes using an isolated sub-agent for unbiased analysis. Checks correctness, conventions, performance, tests, security, and tech design compliance. Use when the user wants a code review or says "review the diff" / "review my changes" / "代码评审" / "review 一下改动". |
Review local code changes by dispatching an isolated sub-agent — a fresh agent with no knowledge of the current session's implementation decisions. This eliminates the bias of reviewing your own work.
Process
1. Gather context for the sub-agent
Collect everything the reviewer needs:
git log --oneline main..HEAD
git diff main...HEAD
git diff
git diff --cached
Also identify:
- Tech design doc path (if one exists in conversation context or commit messages)
- Which services/modules are touched
- Test files added or modified
2. Dispatch the sub-agent
Call the sub_agent tool with subagent_type: "code-review" — a read-only reviewer that starts with zero context. Pass it the diff range, file list, and tech design reference in the prompt — but NOT your implementation reasoning or conversation history.
If you need to review multiple independent changes (e.g., several PRs), dispatch each sub-agent with run_in_background: true so they run in parallel. Wait for the completion notifications and use the results from those notifications. Do not poll sub_agent_status while waiting; use sub_agent_status only if you suspect an agent is stuck or need to list running agents. For a single short review, a synchronous sub_agent call is fine.
The sub-agent prompt should follow the template in code-reviewer.md.
Fill in:
{DESCRIPTION} — brief summary of what these changes do{TECH_DESIGN_PATH} — path to tech design doc (or "none"){BASE_SHA} / {HEAD_SHA} — git range{DIFF_STAT} — output of git diff --stat
If the sub_agent tool is not available in this session, perform the review yourself following the same template — and say explicitly in the report that the review was not isolated.
3. Act on the review
When the sub-agent returns its findings:
Receiving feedback — rules:
- Verify before implementing. Don't blindly agree.
- If any item is unclear, clarify ALL unclear items before fixing any.
- Implementation order: Critical → Important → Minor, test each fix individually.
- Push back with technical reasoning if the reviewer is wrong (missing context, doesn't apply to this codebase, YAGNI).
- No performative agreement ("Great point!", "You're absolutely right!"). Just fix and show the result.
Priority:
- Critical: fix immediately, no exceptions
- Important: fix before proceeding
- Minor: note for later or fix if quick
4. Report to user
Relay the sub-agent's review to the user with your own assessment of each finding — agree, disagree with reasoning, or need discussion.
