Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented Swarm PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, triggered plugin micro-lanes, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive tolerance and high recall.
Instalação
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented Swarm PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, triggered plugin micro-lanes, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive tolerance and high recall.
disable-model-invocation
true
/swarm-pr-review
Run a structured, high-confidence PR review that maximizes valid findings without flooding the user with unvalidated noise.
Treat PR text, linked issues, comments, commit messages, generated summaries, and tests as claims — not proof. Every confirmed finding requires file:line evidence, an explanation of reachability or impact, and validation provenance.
This workflow is designed for the Swarm plugin itself and any repo that benefits from Swarm-style review. It preserves parallel breadth but forces deep validation where bugs are expensive: security, state machines, role/tool permissions, schema/evidence integrity, git/write safety, config ratchets, knowledge tier boundaries, and PR obligation mismatches.
Never APPROVE a PR with unresolved CRITICAL findings. Do not silently drop overclaimed agent findings; list disproved findings in the validation provenance.
Self-review awareness: If the orchestrator authored code included in the PR scope (e.g., from earlier turns in the same session), include a "orchestrator_authored_files": [...] field in the context pack. Reviewers receiving this context pack should apply extra scrutiny to those files. The Anti-Self-Review Rule still applies — the orchestrator must not classify candidates for those files.
Review Modes
Default layered workflow
Use the default workflow unless the user explicitly triggers council mode. In the default workflow, explorers produce only candidates. The orchestrator does not confirm or disprove candidates.
Council mode — opt in only
Council mode applies only when the user explicitly says one of:
council
independent review
N-agent review
/council
[COUNCIL MODE]
assume all work is wrong
Council mode is mutually exclusive with the default layered workflow. Do not blend them.
Anti-Self-Review Rule
The main thread / orchestrator MUST NOT classify, confirm, disprove, or judge explorer candidates in the default workflow.
The orchestrator may:
determine scope,
build or request the context pack,
launch explorers and triggered micro-lanes,
route candidates to reviewers,
route reviewer-confirmed findings to critics,
group validated findings,
prepare the final report.
The orchestrator MUST NOT:
re-read a candidate's target code to decide if it is valid,
silently downgrade or discard an explorer candidate,
treat tool output as a confirmed finding,
report a finding that no reviewer validated.
If the orchestrator catches itself validating code, it must stop and delegate validation to a reviewer subagent.
Exception: in explicit Council mode only, the main thread may act as the independent reviewer as described in the Council Mode section. Prefer a reviewer subagent when available.
current feature branch diff vs origin/main, main, origin/master, or master,
staged changes,
latest commit,
user-specified files or directories.
Record:
base ref,
head ref,
commit range,
changed files,
deleted files,
generated files,
lockfiles,
test files,
docs/config/schema files,
whether the working tree is dirty.
If scope cannot be determined, review the narrowest safe scope available and state the limitation.
Default Review Workflow
Phase 0: Context Pack and Review Signal Collection
Before launching explorers, build a compact swarm-pr-review-context in scratch or as a local artifact if file writes are allowed.
PR Branch Checkout (mandatory)
If the review targets a pull request or a branch other than the current working tree, you MUST git fetch and git checkout the target branch before reading any files or computing the diff. Explorer agents read code via the filesystem — if the working tree is on master but the PR is on origin/feature-branch, explorers read the wrong code and produce invalid candidates. The diff tool also operates on the checked-out branch. If the working tree is dirty, stash changes or warn before checking out.
If the branch does not exist locally (e.g., a remote-only PR branch), use git checkout --track origin/<branch-name> instead.
After checkout, scope all subsequent analysis (diff, repo graph, file reads, explorer context packs) to the checked-out branch. If the branch includes merged commits from prior PRs (common when branching off an already-merged base), scope analysis to the specific PR commit, not the full branch accumulation.
The context pack must include, when available:
{"scope":{"base_ref":"...","head_ref":"...","commit_range":"...","changed_files":[],"changed_hunks":[],"public_api_changes":[],"deleted_or_renamed_files":[],"generated_files":[]},"pr_metadata":{"title":"...","body_claims":[],"checkboxes":[],"linked_issues":[],"review_comments":[],"commit_messages":[]},"obligations":[],"repo_graph":{"source":".swarm/repo-graph.json or fallback search","changed_symbols":[],"callers":[],"callees":[],"imports":[],"exports":[],"sibling_implementations":[]},"deterministic_signals":{"ci":[],"tests":[],"coverage_delta":[],"lint_typecheck_build":[],"security_scanners":[],"dependency_audit":[],"secrets_scan":[],"mutation_testing":[]},"swarm_artifacts":{"evidence_bundles":[],"knowledge_hits":[],"phase_state":[],"metrics":[]},"risk_triggers":[]}
Context pack rules
Diff-only review is allowed for quick orientation, but not enough to confirm nontrivial findings.
For every changed production file, identify at least one caller, consumer, import path, route entrypoint, or reason none exists.
If .swarm/repo-graph.json exists, use it to seed impact cones.
If no repo graph exists, build a shallow impact cone using imports, exports, symbol search, route registration, CLI registration, or test references.
Pull in relevant .swarm/evidence/, .swarm/state, .swarm/knowledge, or hive/project knowledge entries when present.
Historical knowledge may guide candidate generation but cannot confirm a finding by itself.
Mark stale, quarantined, or cross-project knowledge as advisory until independently verified in this repo.
Branch-staleness guard: When the review branch predates recent master commits (e.g., PR #215's test files appeared after the branch was created), explicitly distinguish which diff changes are intentional PR work vs. stale-branch artifacts. Pass the actual fix-commit range (e.g., sha^..sha) to explorer context packs rather than master..HEAD, otherwise explorers will report files that never existed on the branch as deleted/regressed, generating false-positive CRITICAL findings.
Confirm PR-introducedness before reporting as a PR blocker.
Confirm that a framework, schema, middleware, caller guard, or test isolation rule does not already mitigate it.
Do not report scanner output verbatim without reviewer validation.
Redact secrets; never paste raw credentials into the final output.
Phase 3: Parallel Base Explorer Lanes
Launch all base lanes in parallel in a single message with multiple Agent tool calls when the environment supports it (run_in_background: true). Use Explore subagents for exploration.
If the Agent tool is unavailable, simulate isolated passes. Do not let one lane's conclusions bias another lane.
Explorers optimize for recall. Over-reporting is expected. Explorers produce candidates only.
Explorers must not use CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, or PRE_EXISTING.
Phase 4: Triggered Swarm Plugin Micro-Lanes
After base lanes start, inspect the context pack risk triggers. Launch focused micro-lanes for triggered categories only. Do not launch irrelevant micro-lanes.
Mandatory Micro-Lane Trigger Checklist
Before proceeding to Phase 5, the orchestrator MUST enumerate the trigger keywords present in the diff, PR body, test changes, and context pack against the risk trigger map below. For each match, launch the corresponding micro-lane. Skipping this checklist is a skill violation — missed micro-lanes are the most common orchestration failure in PR reviews.
Print and fill before dispatching micro-lanes:
[TRIGGER CHECK] diff keywords scanned: ___
[TRIGGER CHECK] triggers matched: ___
[TRIGGER CHECK] micro-lanes launched: ___
[TRIGGER CHECK] triggers matched but intentionally skipped: ___ (valid reasons: trigger keyword appears only in a comment/string literal with no behavioral impact, or micro-lane scope fully covered by a base lane already dispatched)
Use Swarm-native agents and artifacts when available. If exact agent names are unavailable, route the same task to the closest equivalent reviewer/critic role.
confirmed/borderline correctness, security, state, schema, or config findings
propose or run falsification probes and regression tests
prm_scorer
long or contentious reviews
score whether review trajectory is drifting toward unsupported speculation
.swarm/repo-graph.json
all nontrivial code changes
build impact cones and sibling-pattern checks
.swarm/evidence/
schema, phase, state, council, and guardrail changes
verify evidence compatibility and serialized provenance
/swarm metrics or stored metrics
after synthesis
record review quality and recurring false positives
Verifier output is advisory until incorporated by the independent reviewer or critic.
Phase 6: Independent Reviewer Confirmation
Route candidates to reviewer subagents. The reviewer must re-read the candidate's file:line evidence and relevant context pack entries directly.
Mandatory validation coverage
Validate every candidate that is:
CRITICAL or HIGH severity,
security-related,
business-logic-related,
claim-vs-actual-related,
cross-file or contract-sensitive,
in a triggered Swarm plugin micro-lane,
MEDIUM severity touching changed production code,
a repeated LOW cluster with the same root cause,
related to persistence, write authority, git state, model permissions, tool permissions, phase gates, evidence integrity, config ratchets, or knowledge tiers,
likely to generate false positives without deeper context.
Candidates not validated must be listed as unverified or suppressed as non-actionable noise, with a reason. Do not silently drop them.
Reviewer required checks
For each candidate, the reviewer must determine:
exact file:line evidence,
whether the issue is introduced by this PR or pre-existing,
DISPROVED findings must include the reason. PRE_EXISTING findings must include the base-branch evidence if available.
Phase 7: Falsification Probe Requirement
Each confirmed nontrivial finding must include at least one falsification artifact:
runnable failing command,
proposed regression test,
mutation that current tests fail to kill,
static-analysis trace,
minimal execution path,
exact reason no runtime probe is available.
Nontrivial means any finding that affects correctness, security, state transitions, write authority, git safety, config, schema/evidence integrity, model/tool permissions, external fetches, persistence, or user-visible behavior.
A finding may still be reported without a runnable command if it is structurally proven, but the report must state why a runtime probe was not available.
Phase 8: Critic Challenge
Route every reviewer-confirmed HIGH or CRITICAL finding to a critic. Also route borderline MEDIUM findings when they involve security, state machines, write authority, evidence integrity, model/tool permissions, git safety, or config ratchets.
The critic must challenge:
severity inflation,
weak or incomplete evidence,
missing mitigating context,
false reachability assumptions,
framework or middleware defaults,
schema validation gates,
state-machine constraints,
feature flags or dead code,
pre-existing status,
non-actionable or unsafe fix recommendations,
sibling-file gaps,
whether multiple comments should be grouped into one root cause.
Refuted findings become DISPROVED or ADVISORY, depending on critic rationale. Downgrades must be listed in the final validation provenance.
Runtime-Aware False-Positive Guard Checklist
Before confirming any finding, the reviewer and critic must check all that apply:
Schema validation gate: does schema validation reject malformed input before the flagged line?
Middleware interception: does middleware handle the request or command before the flagged path?
Framework default mitigation: does the framework inherently prevent this class of issue?
Caller context correctness: who invokes this code, and can untrusted input reach it?
Execution reachability: is the path reachable, or behind a feature flag, dead branch, build-only path, or commented-out code?
State-machine constraints: do ordering rules, locks, mutexes, phase gates, or transition guards prevent the state?
Permission boundary: does role/tool mapping prevent the operation?
Data lifetime: is the flagged state persisted, serialized, logged, or only transient?
Cross-platform behavior: does Windows/macOS/Linux path or shell behavior change the result?
Test environment mismatch: is the finding only true under a mock or fixture that cannot occur in production?
If a mitigation applies and was not accounted for, downgrade to ADVISORY, UNVERIFIED, or DISPROVED.
Phase 9: Synthesis, Grouping, and Noise Budget
Before final output:
group duplicate candidates by root cause,
report one finding per root cause,
attach all affected file:line references under that finding,
separate ship blockers from advisory notes,
suppress pure style/nit findings unless they indicate correctness, security, test, maintainability, or user-impact risk,
distinguish PR-introduced from pre-existing,
distinguish confirmed from plausible-but-unverified,
include disproved agent/tool claims,
keep final comments actionable.
Persisting Findings to Survive Context Compaction
Long multi-file reviews generate dozens of candidates and findings. If they are
only held in the orchestrator's conversation context, a context compaction (triggered
at size thresholds by the platform) silently erases this detail — forcing expensive
re-runs of explorer and reviewer lanes.
Requirement (when file writes are allowed): After each validation phase,
persist findings to a structured scratch artifact
(e.g., .swarm/evidence/review-{id}/{phase}.json). In read-only contexts where
file writes are not available, use the strongest non-lossy channel available
(e.g., structured tool output that is captured and stored by the runtime), and
state the limitation explicitly.
Minimum fields schema for each persisted finding:
{"finding_id":"F-001","status":"PENDING | CONFIRMED | DISPROVED | PRE_EXISTING","severity":"CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW","category":"correctness | security | test | docs | perf","file_line":"path/to/file.py:123","evidence":"brief summary of structural proof","next_action":"fix | investigate | ignore | escalate"}
Checkpoint triggers:
Phase
When to persist
Post-explorer
After collecting all base and micro-lane candidates
Post-reviewer
After reviewer confirms/disproves/classifies each finding
Post-critic
After critic challenges HIGH/CRITICAL findings
Pre-synthesis
Before building the final grouped output
Resume procedure: If context is lost mid-review (e.g., after compaction or
interruption), reload the persisted artifacts from whichever channel they were
stored (disk, runtime capture, or structured tool output), re-verify that the
findings match the current working-tree state, and continue from the last
checkpoint phase.
Do not re-dispatch explorers for already-persisted lanes unless the diff changed.
Finding ID format
F-001 | severity | category | root cause | affected file:line refs | reviewer | critic status
Suggested final grouping
Ship blockers,
Important non-blockers,
Test / coverage gaps,
Pre-existing issues,
Unverified plausible risks,
Disproved candidates / false positives,
Clean lane summary.
Phase 10: Metrics and Knowledge Writeback
At the end of the review, record review quality metrics when Swarm metrics or local evidence storage is available.
Record:
raw candidates by base lane,
raw candidates by micro-lane,
deterministic tool candidates,
reviewer-confirmed findings,
reviewer-disproved findings,
reviewer-unverified findings,
critic-upheld findings,
critic-downgraded findings,
critic-disproved findings,
final reported findings,
suppressed non-actionable candidates,
recurring false-positive patterns,
commands or probes used,
token/time cost if available,
accepted/fixed findings when known.
Knowledge writeback rules:
Write back only validated true positives or validated false-positive patterns.
Include file patterns, invariant, evidence, and why it was confirmed/disproved.
Mark repo-specific lessons as project-tier unless there is strong evidence they generalize.
Never promote quarantined or unvalidated knowledge to hive-tier.
Never store secrets, private tokens, or raw sensitive logs.
Council Mode Workflow
Council mode is opt-in only and adversarial.
When triggered:
Build the same context pack as default mode.
Launch all council agents in a single message with multiple Agent tool calls when supported (run_in_background: true).
Each council agent assumes all work is wrong until code evidence proves otherwise.
Each agent hunts within its lane only.
Agents return evidence states only: EVIDENCE_FOUND, SUSPICIOUS, or CLEAN.
Agents must not return CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, or final severity.
The independent reviewer then classifies every council candidate as CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, UNVERIFIED, or PRE_EXISTING.
Apply critic challenge to reviewer-confirmed HIGH/CRITICAL or borderline findings.
Final synthesis distinguishes real blockers, real low-severity issues, accepted caveats, disproved council claims, and follow-up quality work.
Default council lanes:
correctness and edge cases,
security and trust boundaries,
dependency and deployment safety,
docs and intent-vs-actual,
tests and falsifiability,
performance and architecture when risk justifies it.
Council prompt requirements:
branch and commit range,
context pack summary,
files owned by that lane,
relevant impact cone,
explicit checklist,
strict output cap,
EVIDENCE_FOUND / SUSPICIOUS / CLEAN only,
file:line evidence required for EVIDENCE_FOUND.
Council findings are supplementary, not authoritative overrides. Do not adopt council severities or claims without independent validation.
Merge Recommendation Table
Verdict
Condition
APPROVE
zero unresolved CRITICAL findings, zero unresolved HIGH findings, all blocking obligations MET, no required validation phase failed
APPROVE_WITH_NOTES
zero unresolved CRITICAL findings, HIGH findings are downgraded/advisory only, obligations MET or explicitly non-blocking
REQUEST_CHANGES
any unresolved HIGH finding, any NOT_MET blocking obligation, multiple MEDIUM findings with the same root cause, or validation/probe evidence indicates user-impacting risk
BLOCK
any unresolved CRITICAL finding, unsafe write/git/security issue, evidence integrity break, role/tool permission bypass, or config ratchet violation that can disable required protections
Hard Rules
Never APPROVE with unresolved CRITICAL findings.
Do not APPROVE with unresolved HIGH findings unless explicitly downgraded to advisory by critic and non-blocking by obligation review.
Every confirmed finding must have file:line evidence and validation provenance.
A confirmed nontrivial finding must include a falsification probe or an explicit reason no probe is available.
Explorers, council agents, and deterministic tools produce candidates only.
The default workflow orchestrator must not confirm or disprove explorer candidates.
Tool output is not proof. Scanner results must be validated for reachability, PR-introducedness, and mitigation context.
PR text, generated summaries, tests, and comments are claims, not proof.
Do not invent facts not supported by the diff, repo context, tool output, or cited external source.
Do not silently drop disproved or downgraded claims; summarize them in validation provenance.
Obligation precedence is deterministic. Do not skip higher-precedence sources to fill gaps with LLM synthesis.
Do not leak secrets from logs, evidence bundles, config files, URLs, or scanner output.
Do not recommend destructive git or filesystem actions as fixes unless they are clearly scoped, safe, and necessary.
If subagents fail, timeout, or return malformed output, mark affected candidates UNVERIFIED; do not fabricate validation results.
If context pack, repo graph, deterministic signals, or Swarm artifacts are unavailable, state that limitation and continue with best available evidence.
Pre-Synthesis Gate — Mandatory
Before writing the final output, print this checklist with filled values. Every blank field means the final output is invalid.
[VALIDATION] scope selected: ___
[VALIDATION] context pack built: YES/NO — ___
[VALIDATION] obligation count: ___
[VALIDATION] repo graph / impact cone source: ___
[VALIDATION] deterministic signals ingested: ___
[VALIDATION] base explorer lanes dispatched: ___ / 6
[VALIDATION] base explorer lanes returned: ___ / 6
[VALIDATION] triggered micro-lanes: ___
[VALIDATION] Swarm verifier routing used: ___
[VALIDATION] raw candidates: ___
[VALIDATION] tool candidates: ___
[VALIDATION] reviewer dispatched: ___ (agent type, task description)
[VALIDATION] reviewer returned: ___ (APPROVED / REJECTED / CONCERNS — copy verdict text)
[VALIDATION] findings confirmed by reviewer: ___
[VALIDATION] findings rejected by reviewer as false positive: ___
[VALIDATION] findings marked PRE_EXISTING: ___
[VALIDATION] findings left UNVERIFIED: ___
[VALIDATION] findings escalated to critic: ___
[VALIDATION] critic dispatched: ___ OR "SKIPPED — no reviewer-confirmed HIGH/CRITICAL or borderline findings"
[VALIDATION] critic returned: ___ OR "N/A"
[VALIDATION] findings upheld by critic: ___
[VALIDATION] findings downgraded by critic: ___
[VALIDATION] findings disproved by critic: ___
[VALIDATION] falsification probes included: ___
[VALIDATION] grouped root-cause findings: ___
[VALIDATION] metrics / knowledge writeback: ___
If the reviewer returned REJECTED or CONCERNS, route the issue back to implementation context or mark the candidate invalid with reason. Do not silently downgrade a rejection.
Final Output Format
Produce the final review in this order:
PR intent
Summarize the obligations and user-visible intent.
Implementation summary
Summarize what changed, including major files, public APIs, schemas, configs, tests, and Swarm artifacts.
Intended vs actual mapping
Obligation
Source
Actual evidence
Status
Linked finding
Use MET, PARTIALLY_MET, NOT_MET, or UNVERIFIABLE.
Validation provenance
Include:
context pack limitations,
explorer lanes launched and returned,
micro-lanes triggered,
deterministic signals ingested,
reviewer identity / role for each finding,
critic result for each escalated finding,
findings DISPROVED by reviewer with reason,
findings DOWNGRADED by critic with reason,
findings left UNVERIFIED with reason.
If zero findings, explicitly state:
No confirmed findings — all validated lanes CLEAN.
Only include if useful and clearly labeled as unverified.
Test / coverage gaps
Focus on missing tests that would catch real risks, not generic coverage requests.
Disproved candidates and false positives
List concise reasons for notable false positives from explorers, tools, council agents, or reviewers.
Verdict
Use one of:
APPROVE
APPROVE_WITH_NOTES
REQUEST_CHANGES
BLOCK
Merge recommendation
Explain the recommendation in one short paragraph and list required actions before merge if applicable.
Reviewer Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching reviewer subagents:
You are the independent reviewer. Validate only the candidates assigned below.
Do not search for new issues except where needed to validate reachability or mitigation.
Do not trust explorer severity.
Context pack summary:
- scope: ...
- obligations: ...
- impact cone: ...
- deterministic signals: ...
- relevant Swarm artifacts / knowledge: ...
Candidates:
- ...
For each candidate, return:
[REVIEWED] | candidate_id | CONFIRMED/DISPROVED/UNVERIFIED/PRE_EXISTING | evidence_type | final_severity | introduced_by_pr | file:line | rationale | falsification_probe | reviewer_id
You must check caller context, reachability, schema/middleware/framework mitigations, state-machine constraints, test coverage, PR-introducedness, and severity.
Critic Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching critic subagents:
You are the adversarial critic. Challenge only reviewer-confirmed findings assigned below.
Your goal is to reduce false positives, severity inflation, and non-actionable reports.
For each finding, challenge:
- whether evidence proves the claim,
- whether the path is reachable,
- whether mitigations apply,
- whether severity is inflated,
- whether it is PR-introduced,
- whether suggested fixes are safe/actionable,
- whether related files were missed,
- whether multiple findings should be grouped.
Return:
[CRITIC] | finding_id | UPHELD/DOWNGRADED/DISPROVED/NEEDS_MORE_EVIDENCE | final_severity | reason | required_report_change
Explorer Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching base explorer or micro-lane agents:
You are an explorer. Optimize for recall, not final judgment.
Return candidates only. Do not use CONFIRMED, DISPROVED, or PRE_EXISTING.
Lane:
Scope:
Obligations:
Changed files/hunks:
Impact cone:
Relevant deterministic signals:
Relevant Swarm artifacts / knowledge:
Checklist:
You must inspect or mark unavailable:
1. changed hunk,
2. caller/consumer,
3. callee/dependency,
4. sibling implementation or prior pattern,
5. nearest test or missing-test location,
6. deterministic signals,
7. Swarm artifacts/knowledge.
Return:
[CANDIDATE] | candidate_id | lane | severity | category | file:line | claim | evidence_summary | impact_context | confidence
