code-review

name	code-review
description	Multi-dimensional code review using specialized sub-agents

Code Review

Dispatch specialized review agents to analyze code changes in parallel, then synthesize their findings into a verdict.

Step 1: Determine Scope

Identify what to review. Use the user's input — a PR number, branch, file list, or default to unstaged changes.

Build a scope summary:

• What changed (files, rough line count)
• The intent behind the changes (PR description, commit messages, linked issues)

Step 2: Dispatch Reviewers

Use the agent tool to dispatch all 4 agents in the same assistant turn. Include the scope summary and relevant file paths in each task.

1. { agent: "security-specialist", task: "Review these changes for security vulnerabilities: {scope}" }
2. { agent: "testing-specialist", task: "Review test coverage and quality for these changes: {scope}" }
3. { agent: "docs-specialist", task: "Review documentation accuracy and completeness for these changes: {scope}" }
4. { agent: "code-clarity-specialist", task: "Review these changes for simplification opportunities: {scope}" }

Step 3: Synthesize

Collect findings from all 4 reviewers. Apply confidence scoring — only include findings with confidence ≥ 80:

Range	Meaning
91–100	Critical bug or explicit guideline violation
80–90	Important issue requiring attention
Below 80	Omit — too speculative or low-impact

Before scoring, verify each finding:

• Is this a real issue? Is the code path reachable?
• Is it new? Pre-existing issues in unchanged code score lower.
• What's the impact? Hot paths and security-sensitive code score higher.

Step 4: Verdict

Findings	Verdict
Any 🔴 blockers	Request Changes
Multiple 🟠 majors (3+)	Request Changes
Few 🟠 majors (1-2), discussable	Comment with concerns
Only 🟡 minors and 🟢 nitpicks	Approve
Clean review	Approve with positive notes

Weight by impact — security vulnerabilities, data integrity risks, and missing tests for critical paths weigh heavier. Style preferences, documentation gaps in internal tools, and naming nitpicks weigh lighter.

Output

## Code Review

**Verdict**: Approve / Request Changes / Comment
**Scope**: X files, ~Y lines changed

### 🔴 Blocking Issues (90–100)
- [DIMENSION] file:line — description

### 🟠 Important Issues (80–89)
- [DIMENSION] file:line — description

### Positive Notes
- What's well done

### Questions
- Anything that needs clarification from the author