wf-review

name	wf-review
description	Use for /wf-review in Claude Code or OpenCode, $wf-review or /skills wf-review in Codex, peer review, second opinion, cross-runtime review, or independent reviewer subagent review.

WF Review Adapter

Prefer an independent peer runtime for review. If no other CLI is available, use the installed reviewer role as a separate subagent context. Never label a same-runtime reviewer or bounded role pass as cross-model review.

Invocation

• Claude Code: use /wf-review [focus] or select the wf-review skill.
• Codex CLI or IDE: use $wf-review or /skills then choose wf-review.
• OpenCode: use /wf-review [focus]; the .opencode/commands/wf-review.md wrapper routes here.

Authority

The main agent is the controller. It owns final decisions, accepted/rejected findings, fixes, release claims, and user-facing recommendations. Review agents only provide evidence-backed suggestions.

Cache Discipline

Follow Harness/specs/runtime/context-loading.md#Cache-First Context Contract: build review context from changed-file lists, ACs, validation evidence, and targeted diffs; avoid pasting unrelated history, full transcripts, or unused tool schemas into the review prompt.

Runtime Selection

1. Build one review prompt containing the relevant diff, task acceptance criteria, changed-file list, validation evidence, and the review dimensions.
2. Detect available CLIs (claude, codex, opencode) with the platform's normal command lookup.
3. Prefer a CLI that is not the current runtime. If several exist, prefer a different model/provider when known; otherwise use the first available in the table below.
4. If no other CLI exists, dispatch the installed reviewer role as a separate subagent context. For WF-MAX or broad/high-risk changes, use review-manager to split spec/code/security/performance dimensions when the runtime supports nested subagents.
5. If neither a peer CLI nor a subagent surface exists, warn that WF-REVIEW is degraded and perform only a controller review; do not count it as independent review.

Current runtime	Preferred peer CLI	Secondary peer CLI	Same-runtime fallback
Claude Code	codex exec "<review prompt>"	opencode run --agent reviewer --dir . "<review prompt>"	Claude reviewer subagent
Codex	claude -p "<review prompt>"	opencode run --agent reviewer --dir . "<review prompt>"	Codex subagent or bounded reviewer role pass
OpenCode	claude -p "<review prompt>"	codex exec "<review prompt>"	opencode run --agent reviewer --dir . "<review prompt>" or OpenCode reviewer subagent
Unknown	any available peer CLI, preferring claude, then codex, then opencode	next available peer CLI	installed reviewer role subagent

OpenCode note: opencode run [message..] is the non-interactive CLI path and --agent reviewer selects the installed .opencode/agents/reviewer.md role.

Review Dimensions

Cover correctness, security, architecture, performance, and tests. Classify findings as Critical, High, Medium, or Low. Return raw peer or subagent output first, then the controller's severity-classified synthesis.

Reviewer Role Fallback

When using a same-runtime subagent fallback, dispatch a real role packet instead of an ad hoc prompt:

Role: reviewer
AgentName: reviewer
Mode: read-only
Objective: review the current diff for correctness, security, architecture,
performance, tests, and spec/AC compliance
Read set: changed files, tests, task PLAN/PROGRESS, Harness/specs/runtime/agent-workflow.md,
Harness/specs/runtime/subagents.md, Harness/specs/runtime/dispatch.md, architecture docs when affected
Write set: none
Forbidden: file edits, git mutations, formatting-only advice, ungrounded claims
ReturnSchema: findings by severity, file/line refs, missing verification,
open questions, closeout recommendation

If the runtime exposes review-manager, use it only when the diff is broad enough to benefit from multiple reviewer dimensions. The controller must deduplicate reviewer output and decide what to accept.

Context

Include the relevant diff, Harness/project/architecture.md when architecture is in scope, and any task acceptance criteria. If the diff is too large, ask for a narrower scope before invoking a peer CLI or reviewer subagent.