| 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
- Use
git diff and git diff --staged to check changes
- 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:
- Summary: Concise assessment of overall change quality
- Critical Issues (if any): Issues requiring immediate attention
- Improvement Suggestions (if any): Suggestions for quality enhancement
- Positive Highlights (if any): Excellent implementations and good practices
Step 4: Review Cycle
If issues are found:
- Fix the issues
- Run
/review again
- 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
