review

name	review
description	Conduct comprehensive code reviews using 5 specialized subagents (code quality, performance, test coverage, documentation accuracy, security) in parallel, providing an integrated report. Use at important milestones (5+ file changes, public API updates, infrastructure config updates, before commits/PRs/releases). Triggers on requests like "review this", "check the code", "review the changes".

Review - Comprehensive Code Review

Conduct multi-perspective code reviews using specialized subagents.

When to Use This Skill

Automatically suggest a review in the following situations:

• User says "review this", "check the code", or "review the changes"
• After completing an implementation involving 5+ file changes
• After public API updates
• Before creating a commit or PR
• User runs /review

Review Perspectives

Subagent	Perspective	Focus
code-quality-reviewer	Code Quality	Clean code, SOLID principles, readability, maintainability
performance-reviewer	Performance	Bottlenecks, N+1 queries, memory efficiency
test-coverage-reviewer	Test Coverage	Completeness, test quality, boundary values
documentation-accuracy-reviewer	Documentation Accuracy	Code-documentation alignment
security-code-reviewer	Security	OWASP Top 10, input validation, authentication & authorization

Execution Flow

Step 1: Identify Review Targets

1. Use git diff and git diff --staged to check changes
2. If changes are extensive, list changed files to understand the review scope

Step 2: Parallel Subagent Execution

IMPORTANT: Execute all 5 subagents in parallel.

Provide each subagent with:

• Diffs of changed files
• Relevant context (existing code, design intent)
• Instructions to report only noteworthy findings

Step 3: Create Integrated Report

Once all reviews are complete, synthesize feedback into the following format:

1. Summary: Concise assessment of overall change quality
2. Critical Issues (if any): Issues requiring immediate attention
3. Improvement Suggestions (if any): Suggestions for quality enhancement
4. Positive Highlights (if any): Excellent implementations and good practices

Step 4: Review Cycle

If issues are found:

1. Fix the issues
2. Run /review again
3. Repeat until no issues remain

Conflict Resolution

When reviewers disagree or a design trade-off is unclear, use /magi-decision-support to get multi-perspective analysis. The MAGI system provides three viewpoints (Scientist, Mother, Realist) that can help resolve:

• Contradicting recommendations from different reviewers
• Architectural trade-offs with no clear winner
• Performance vs. readability vs. security trade-offs
• Any decision where reasonable engineers would disagree

Notes

• Keep feedback concise and focus on important issues only
• Avoid burying critical problems under trivial concerns
• When code is well-written, acknowledge it explicitly