multi-lens-review

name	multi-lens-review
model	opus
description	Run 10 parallel review agents, each with a different quality lens (correctness, safety, perf, a11y, etc.), against plans, beads, code, or architecture decisions. Use when a thorough multi-perspective review is needed before shipping.
argument-hint	<target: plan file, bead list, or code path> [--lenses L1,L2,...] [--team-size N]

Multi-Lens Review

Spawn N parallel agents (default 10), each assigned a distinct review lens, to independently review a target artifact. Compile findings into a single issues list with severity and actionable fixes.

When to Use

• Before finalizing implementation plans
• After creating or rewriting beads
• Before major architecture decisions ship
• After code changes that touch cross-cutting concerns
• Any time "review this thoroughly" is requested

Review Lenses

Default set of 10 lenses. Override with --lenses to select a subset or customize.

#	Lens	Focus	Key Questions
1	Correctness	Logic, specs, ACs	Does implementation match spec? Are ACs testable and complete?
2	Safety	Data integrity, error handling	Can data be corrupted? Are failure modes handled? Race conditions?
3	Performance	Hot paths, allocations, O(n)	Any unnecessary allocations? O(n^2) where O(n) suffices? UI thread blocking?
4	Accessibility	Screen readers, keyboard nav, contrast	Can every action be done by keyboard? Are ARIA labels present?
5	Localization	Strings, RTL, formatting	Are all user-visible strings in resx? Any hardcoded formats (dates, numbers)?
6	Testability	Coverage, test design, mocking	Are ACs expressed as Given/When/Then? Can this be tested without hardware?
7	Dependencies	Coupling, circular refs, ordering	Are dependency chains correct? Any cycles? Missing blocked-by links?
8	UX Consistency	Patterns, terminology, flow	Does this match existing UX patterns? Consistent terminology? Progressive disclosure?
9	Security	Input validation, secrets, permissions	Any injection vectors? Secrets in logs? Proper authz checks?
10	Feasibility	Scope, risk, unknowns	Is this achievable in one bead? Are there hidden unknowns? What could go wrong?

Alternate Lens Sets

For general review (plans, docs, decisions), replace lenses 3-5 with:

#	Lens	Focus
3	Completeness	Missing cases, edge conditions, gaps in coverage
4	Conflict	Contradictions between sections, specs, or existing code
5	Clarity	Ambiguous language, vague ACs, undefined terms

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Target

Determine what is being reviewed:

• Plan file(s): Read the plan document(s)
• Beads: br list --status open --json or specific bead IDs
• Code: File paths or git diff range
• Architecture decision: PDR YAML or design doc

Step 2: Prepare Shared Context

Create a context summary that all agents receive:

REVIEW TARGET: <what is being reviewed>
TARGET TYPE: <plan | beads | code | architecture>
CONTEXT FILES: <list of files agents should read>
CONSTRAINTS: <any known constraints or requirements>

Step 3: Spawn Review Agents

For each lens, spawn an agent with this prompt template:

You are a review agent with the **{LENS_NAME}** lens.

## Your Review Focus
{LENS_DESCRIPTION}

## Key Questions to Answer
{LENS_QUESTIONS}

## Target
{SHARED_CONTEXT}

## Instructions
1. Read all target files and context
2. Review ONLY through your assigned lens — do not duplicate other lenses
3. For each issue found, report:
   - **Severity:** CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
   - **Location:** File path + line/section or bead ID
   - **Issue:** What is wrong
   - **Fix:** Specific actionable fix (not just "consider doing X")
   - **Evidence:** Quote or reference supporting the finding
4. If you find ZERO issues through your lens, state that explicitly with reasoning
5. Do NOT pad findings — false positives waste time

## Output Format
Return a JSON array:
[
  {
    "lens": "{LENS_NAME}",
    "severity": "HIGH",
    "location": "path/to/file:42 or bead bd-xyz",
    "issue": "Description of the problem",
    "fix": "Specific fix to apply",
    "evidence": "Supporting quote or reference"
  }
]

Spawn the N reviewers with one leader message containing N Agent tool calls (subagent_type: "general-purpose", run_in_background: true, distinct name, shared team_name) so they run concurrently.

Step 4: Compile Findings

After all agents complete:

1. Collect all issue arrays into one list
2. Deduplicate — merge issues found by multiple lenses (note: multi-lens agreement raises confidence)
3. Sort by severity (CRITICAL first)
4. Cross-validate — flag any issue where two lenses contradict each other
5. Write compiled findings to {artifact_dir}/review-findings.json and a human-readable review-findings.md

Step 5: Apply Fixes

For each CRITICAL and HIGH issue:

1. Apply the suggested fix
2. If fix conflicts with another finding, flag for manual resolution
3. Track which findings were addressed

For MEDIUM and LOW: present to user for triage.

Step 6: Convergence Check

Review is complete when:

• All CRITICAL issues are resolved
• All HIGH issues are resolved or explicitly deferred with rationale
• No two lenses have unresolved contradictions
• Fixes have not introduced new CRITICAL/HIGH issues (spot-check)

If fixes are extensive, consider running a second pass (reduced team: 4-6 agents, focused on lenses that found the most issues).

Team Size Guidance

Target Size	Recommended Team	Rationale
1-5 beads or small plan	6 agents	Full coverage overkill for small targets
6-20 beads or medium plan	10 agents (default)	Standard coverage
20+ beads or large plan	10 + second pass	First pass finds bulk, second pass catches interactions
Code review (<500 LOC)	6 agents	Focus on correctness, safety, perf, tests
Code review (>500 LOC)	10 agents	Full lens set

Example Invocations

/swarm-review foundation/product/features/sensor-plate-implementation-plan.md
/swarm-review --lenses correctness,safety,deps bd-abc,bd-def,bd-ghi
/swarm-review --team-size 6 src/motioncatalyst/ViewModel/Settings/