| 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.)
