review

name	review
description	Review completed work against success criteria and flag issues
user-invocable	true
disable-model-invocation	false
argument-hint	["what to review - file","feature","or recent work"]

Review

Evaluate completed work against its success criteria. Find problems before they compound.

Input

What to review: $ARGUMENTS

If no arguments, review whatever was most recently implemented in the conversation.

Process

Step 1: Pre-check

• If /verify hasn't been run on the target, suggest running it first — /verify catches completeness issues, /review catches quality issues. Different concerns.
• Read relevant COMP files (CLAUDE.md for conventions, MEMORY.md for gotchas)
• Identify the success criteria (from /plan-task output, PLAN.md, or conversation)

Step 2: Launch Review

Read @review-dimensions.md for what to check based on the type of work (code, data, writing).

Launch the review using a fresh-context subagent (use the code-reviewer agent persona for code). The reviewer should NOT share the implementer's assumptions.

Step 3: Present Findings

Read @output-format.md for how to organize findings.

Step 4: Escalation Check

• For significant reviews, consider suggesting /dialectic-review for adversarial depth
• If the review surfaces architectural concerns, suggest /dialectic-review --premortem before proceeding with fixes

Rules

Read @rules.md for review rules and gotchas.