code-review

name	code-review
description	/code-review — adversarial PR review via the code-review workflow: four parallel finder angles, dedup, an evidence-checking verify pass, and a findings report. Falls back to a two-axis inline review when the workflow isn't available.
user_only	true
slash	code-review

Code Review — adversarial panel

Drive the code-review workflow (ADR 0077): four review-finders read the diff in parallel (correctness / removed behavior / cross-file / conventions), a synthesizer dedups and ranks, a verifier re-reads the diff and confirms/refutes each finding, and the refuted ones are dropped. You gather the inputs, run it, and present the outcome — you do not review inline.

1. Pin the PR

The workflow reviews a pull request (it reads via github_pr_diff):

• Given a PR number or URL → extract the number, and the owner/name repo if it differs from the configured default.
• Given a branch or "my current changes" → find its PR (github_get_pr / gh pr view). No PR yet → say so and offer the fallback below.
• Given only a commit SHA → the finders can use github_get_commit_diff; pass the SHA as pr only if there is no PR, and say the verify pass will anchor to the commit.

2. Run the workflow

run_workflow("code-review", {"pr": "<number>", "repo": "<owner/name or omit>"})

It is slow-ish (6 subagent steps, 4 in parallel) — tell the user it's running.

3. Present the outcome

The output ends with the canonical fenced findings JSON (graph/review/findings.py schema — file, line, severity, category, claim, evidence, verdict). Present the prose brief, then the findings grouped by severity, worst first, keeping each finding's verdict visible ("confirmed" vs "uncertain" — the reader weighs them differently). A clean review is a result, not a failure: say the panel found nothing and name the angles it covered. Don't re-litigate individual findings — the verify pass already did; if the user disputes one, offer to re-run the verifier on just that claim.

Fallback — workflow unavailable

If run_workflow or the github tools aren't available (plugin disabled, no gh auth), run the lightweight two-axis review inline instead: pin a concrete diff (git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD, three-dot), then two parallel delegations (subagent_type: verifier) — a Standards brief (documented repo conventions + baseline smells: mysterious names, duplicated logic, data clumps, shotgun surgery) and a Spec brief (missing/partial requirements, unrequested behavior, implemented-but-wrong) — and present the two reports under ## Standards / ## Spec without merging them, one closing line per axis. (Adapted from mattpocock/skills code-review, MIT.)