review

name	review
description	Code review via risk-routed judgment lanes — static tools first, then only the lanes the diff's surface warrants, blocker findings refuter-verified and fixed green-to-green
argument-hint	Optional — file paths or git diff range to review

Code Review

Review a diff with machine checks first and model judgment only where the diff earns it. No orchestrator agent: routing is a path-glob table, aggregation is yours, and each lane is one focused reviewer.

Step 1: Scope

$ARGUMENTS names files or a range → use it. Otherwise git diff --name-only HEAD~1. Hold the concrete file list; everything routes off it.

Step 2: Tools before models

Run the project's static battery over the scope first (lint, format check, ArchUnit-tier tests, semgrep — whatever the project's fast gate declares). Tool findings are findings; a model reviewing import order is the most expensive linter ever built. Only what tools cannot judge proceeds to lanes.

Step 3: Route lanes by surface

Diff touches	Lanes
anything	reliability (always)
SQL, migrations, queries, loops over collections	+ performance
auth, input parsing, secrets, network boundaries	+ security
module seams, new files, public interfaces	+ architecture

Spawn the routed lanes in parallel (foreground), each with the file list and CLAUDE.md for conventions; reliability and security additionally get the task's requirements.md/mechanics.md when a task path exists — the other lanes derive nothing from spec docs. Lanes return finding rows: file, line, severity, failure scenario, fix sketch. Severity calibration comes from the project's CLAUDE.md; when in doubt a lane scores one level lower.

Step 4: Verdict and fixes

1. Aggregate the rows; dedupe by file+line; spot-check each surviving finding against the source before acting — a reviewer citing a line that doesn't exist is a discarded finding, not a fix.
2. Blockers (at or above the project's blocking bar): verify each with a parallel refuter vote — three refuters prompted to refute, each spawned with an explicit model: sonnet (a bare spawn inherits the session model, which is the expensive tier), the finding surviving only if at most one succeeds. Survivors you fix yourself, green-to-green (test files untouched); commit through the session's normal consent flow.
3. Sub-blockers: report as follow-up rows; no fix loop, no re-review.
4. Re-run the static battery after fixes. One re-review pass at most, scoped to the fixed files plus the reliability lane; carry anything still open into the report.

Step 5: Report

Verdict (ship / fix-first), the finding table (blockers with refuter tallies, follow-ups), fixes with SHAs, and what the tools caught that lanes never had to — the cheapest finding is the one a model never made.