| name | review-toolkit |
| description | Orchestrates a comprehensive code review using up to 6 specialist skills. Dispatches code-review, code-simplifier, comment-analyzer, silent-failure-hunter, type-design-analyzer, and test-analyzer based on the scope of changes. Use for thorough end-to-end review of code changes. |
| argument-hint | [file, directory, or git diff to review] |
| user-invocable | true |
Review Toolkit
Comprehensive code review orchestrator. Dispatches specialist review agents based on the scope of changes and aggregates all findings in a unified report.
Specialist Skills
| Skill | Purpose |
|---|
| code-review | Bugs, security issues, correctness, conventions-file violations |
| code-simplifier | Unnecessary complexity, duplication, readability |
| comment-analyzer | Comment accuracy, comment rot, misleading documentation |
| silent-failure-hunter | Silent errors, inadequate user feedback, catch block quality |
| type-design-analyzer | Type encapsulation, invariant expression and enforcement |
| test-analyzer | Behavioral coverage gaps, test quality, anti-pattern detection |
Dispatch Rules
Always run:
- code-review — applies to any code change
Run when applicable:
- test-analyzer — test files modified or new behavior added
- silent-failure-hunter — error handling code modified (
try/catch, error callbacks, fallbacks)
- type-design-analyzer — new types, interfaces, or data models added or significantly changed
- comment-analyzer — documentation comments or inline comments added/modified
Run after correctness is confirmed (regardless of other findings):
- code-simplifier — once critical bugs and coverage gaps are resolved
Process
- Identify the scope of changes (files changed, types of changes)
- Determine which specialist skills to dispatch based on the rules above
- Run each selected skill as a sub-agent against the relevant scope
- Collect all findings
- Aggregate into a unified report
Output Format
## Toolkit Summary
Specialists dispatched: [list]
Overall assessment: [PASS / NEEDS WORK / CRITICAL ISSUES]
## Critical Issues
[Aggregated CRITICAL findings from all specialists, with source skill noted]
## Important Issues
[Aggregated HIGH/IMPORTANT findings]
## Suggestions
[Aggregated MEDIUM/lower priority findings]
## Positive Observations
[Notable good practices found across all reviews]
Severity order: Critical → Important → Suggestions → Positive Observations.
