cross-review

name	cross-review
description	Cross review code using a subagent with a specified model. Use when the user asks to review code changes AND specifies a model to use (e.g., 'review with opus', 'use sonnet to review', 'review changes with gemini'). The key differentiator from the regular code-review skill is that the user explicitly specifies which model should perform the review. The root agent reconstructs what changed from its own conversation history — no git commands are used.
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0"}

Cross Review

Reconstruct what you changed during this conversation, then delegate the actual review to a single subagent running the code-review skill with a user-specified model.

IMPORTANT: Steps 1–2 run in the current agent (the master). Only Step 3 spawns a subagent. Do NOT spawn a subagent to execute this skill's workflow — that creates unnecessary nesting.

Expected Prompt Format

Use review skill with <model-id> model to review the changes. Review instructions: <instructions>

Workflow

Step 1: Parse the user request

Extract from the user's prompt:

• Model: The model ID to use for the subagent. Validate against the available models.
• Review instructions: Any text after "Review instructions:" — pass these verbatim to the subagent.
• Change scope: Any indication of what should be reviewed. If not provided, default to reviewing all changes made by you during this conversation.

Step 2: Gather context from your own changes

Collect all information the review subagent will need. Do this in the current agent — do NOT delegate this step.

You already know what you changed — reconstruct the diff from your own conversation history:

1. Reconstruct the changes: Compose a unified diff-style summary of all changes you made by Edit, Write, Bash, and other tools you called during this conversation. Group changes by file.

   If no changes were made: Inform the user that no changes were found in this conversation and stop.

2. Read the final state of changed files to provide full surrounding context. Use the Read tool on each changed file.

3. Check for related context:

   • Read test files related to the changed files, prioritizing nearby paths and excluding dependency/vendor directories (e.g., node_modules, .git, dist, build, coverage)
   • Check for configuration changes that may affect behavior
   • Note any related type definitions or interfaces

Do NOT show gathered context or its process to the user. Use it only for the subagent.

Step 3: Spawn the review subagent

Use spawn_subagent with:

• skill: "code-review"
• model: The model extracted from the user's request.
• prompt: use following template

Review the changes below using "code-review" skill.

IMPORTANT CONSTRAINTS:
- Do NOT edit, write, or execute any commands that modify files. This is a read-only review.
- All necessary context is provided below. Read files only if provided context is clearly incomplete.
- Review the changes independently and objectively. Do not assume the changes are correct.

## Review Instructions

{user's review instructions, verbatim}

## Changes

{reconstructed diff or before/after summary of all changes, grouped by file}

## Full File Contents

{Do NOT include full file contents as subagent can read them if needed}

## Additional Context

{links to any related files, test files, type definitions, or user-provided requirements}

Step 4: Relay the result — READ-ONLY, NO ACTIONS

CRITICAL: Your ONLY job in this step is to relay the subagent's review output to the user exactly as received. You MUST:

• Output the review AS-IS: Copy the subagent's response verbatim. Do NOT summarize, rephrase, reorder, filter, or editorialize the review in any way.
• Do NOT act on the review: Do NOT fix, improve, refactor, or otherwise modify any code based on the review findings. Do NOT open files to make corrections. Do NOT run any commands to address issues raised.
• Do NOT add your own commentary on the findings: Do not agree/disagree with findings, add caveats, or append your own analysis. A one-line model attribution (e.g., "Review produced by opus-4-6-think") is acceptable, but nothing more.

You can ONLY suggest or offer to implement any of the review's recommendations. Let the user decide what to do next.

Error Handling

• spawn_subagent fails or times out: Inform the user of the failure. Suggest retrying or using a different model.
• No changes in conversation: Inform the user no changes were found and stop.
• Subagent returns an error or incomplete review: Relay whatever was returned and note that the review may be incomplete.