// Gate 4 of development cycle - dispatches 6 specialized reviewers (code, business-logic, security, test, nil-safety, consequences) in parallel for comprehensive code review feedback.
| name | ring:requesting-code-review |
| description | Gate 4 of development cycle - dispatches 6 specialized reviewers (code, business-logic, security, test, nil-safety, consequences) in parallel for comprehensive code review feedback. |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | opencode |
| metadata | {"trigger":"Gate 4 of development cycle, after completing major feature, before merge to main, after fixing complex bug","skip_when":"Never - code review is always required for blocking issues","sequence_after":"ring:dev-testing","sequence_before":"ring:dev-validation"} |
Dispatch all six reviewer subagents in parallel for fast, comprehensive feedback:
Core principle: All 6 reviewers run simultaneously in a single message with 6 Task tool calls.
This skill ORCHESTRATES. Reviewer Agents REVIEW.
| Who | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| This Skill | Dispatch reviewers, aggregate findings, track iterations |
| Reviewer Agents | Analyze code, report issues with severity |
| Implementation Agent | Fix issues found by reviewers |
This skill supports TWO modes:
1. WITH INPUTS: Called by any skill/user that provides structured inputs (unit_id, base_sha, etc.)
2. STANDALONE: Called directly without inputs - auto-detects everything from git
FOR EACH INPUT, check if provided OR auto-detect:
1. unit_id:
IF provided → use it
ELSE → generate: "review-" + timestamp (e.g., "review-20241222-143052")
2. base_sha:
IF provided → use it
ELSE → Execute: git merge-base HEAD main
IF git fails → Execute: git rev-parse HEAD~10 (fallback to last 10 commits)
3. head_sha:
IF provided → use it
ELSE → Execute: git rev-parse HEAD
4. implementation_files:
IF provided → use it
ELSE → Execute: git diff --name-only [base_sha] [head_sha]
5. implementation_summary:
IF provided → use it
ELSE → Execute: git log --oneline [base_sha]..[head_sha]
Format as: "Changes: [list of commit messages]"
6. requirements:
IF provided → use it
ELSE → Set to: "Infer requirements from code changes and commit messages"
(Reviewers will analyze code to understand intent)
AFTER AUTO-DETECTION, display context:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📋 CODE REVIEW CONTEXT │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Unit ID: [unit_id] │
│ Base SHA: [base_sha] │
│ Head SHA: [head_sha] │
│ Files Changed: [count] files │
│ Commits: [count] commits │
│ │
│ Dispatching 6 reviewers in parallel... │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
review_state = {
unit_id: [from input],
base_sha: [from input],
head_sha: [from input],
reviewers: {
code_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
business_logic_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
security_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
test_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
nil_safety_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []},
consequences_reviewer: {verdict: null, issues: []}
},
aggregated_issues: {
critical: [],
high: [],
medium: [],
low: [],
cosmetic: []
},
iterations: 0,
max_iterations: 3
}
MANDATORY: Run static analysis, AST extraction, and call graph analysis BEFORE dispatching reviewers. This provides critical context that significantly improves review quality.
Skip Override: The skip_preanalysis parameter allows bypassing this step ONLY when explicitly requested by the user. This is NOT recommended.
# Detect platform
OS=$(uname -s | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')
ARCH=$(uname -m)
case $ARCH in
x86_64) ARCH="amd64" ;;
aarch64|arm64) ARCH="arm64" ;;
esac
# Binary search paths (in priority order)
PLUGIN_BIN="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/run-all"
LOCAL_BIN="./default/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/run-all"
# Find binary
BINARY=""
CHECKSUM_FILE=""
if [[ -x "$PLUGIN_BIN" ]]; then
BINARY="$PLUGIN_BIN"
CHECKSUM_FILE="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/CHECKSUMS.sha256"
elif [[ -x "$LOCAL_BIN" ]]; then
BINARY="$LOCAL_BIN"
CHECKSUM_FILE="./default/lib/codereview/bin/${OS}_${ARCH}/CHECKSUMS.sha256"
fi
# Secure execution: copy to temp, verify copy, execute copy
# This prevents TOCTOU race conditions by verifying the COPY we execute
secure_execute_binary() {
local binary="$1"
local checksum_file="$2"
shift 2
local args=("$@")
# Create secure temporary copy
local secure_copy=$(mktemp)
trap "rm -f '$secure_copy'" EXIT
# Copy binary to secure location
if ! cp "$binary" "$secure_copy"; then
echo "✗ Failed to create secure copy"
return 1
fi
chmod 700 "$secure_copy"
# Verify the COPY (not the original - prevents TOCTOU)
local binary_name=$(basename "$binary")
# Check checksum file exists
if [[ ! -f "$checksum_file" ]]; then
echo "✗ ERROR: Checksum file required for security verification"
echo " Set RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED=true to bypass (not recommended)"
if [[ "${RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED:-false}" != "true" ]]; then
return 1
fi
echo "⚠️ WARNING: Running in unverified mode"
else
# Get expected hash using exact match (prevents partial match attacks)
local expected_hash=$(awk -v name="$binary_name" '$2 == name {print $1}' "$checksum_file")
if [[ -z "$expected_hash" ]]; then
echo "✗ ERROR: Binary '$binary_name' not found in checksum file"
return 1
fi
# Compute hash of the COPY (macOS and Linux compatible)
local actual_hash
if command -v sha256sum &> /dev/null; then
actual_hash=$(sha256sum "$secure_copy" | awk '{print $1}')
elif command -v shasum &> /dev/null; then
actual_hash=$(shasum -a 256 "$secure_copy" | awk '{print $1}')
else
echo "✗ ERROR: No sha256sum or shasum available"
return 1
fi
if [[ "$expected_hash" != "$actual_hash" ]]; then
echo "✗ CHECKSUM MISMATCH - Binary may be corrupted or tampered"
echo " Expected: $expected_hash"
echo " Actual: $actual_hash"
return 1
fi
echo "✓ Binary integrity verified"
fi
# Execute the verified copy
"$secure_copy" "${args[@]}"
local result=$?
rm -f "$secure_copy"
trap - EXIT
return $result
}
build_from_source() {
echo "Attempting to build from source..."
# Check if Go is available
if ! command -v go &> /dev/null; then
echo "✗ Go not installed. Cannot build from source."
echo " Install Go from https://go.dev/dl/ or use pre-built binaries."
return 1
fi
# Find source directory
local source_dir=""
if [[ -d "./scripts/codereview" ]]; then
source_dir="./scripts/codereview"
elif [[ -d "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/../../scripts/codereview" ]]; then
source_dir="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-}/../../scripts/codereview"
fi
if [[ -z "$source_dir" || ! -d "$source_dir" ]]; then
echo "✗ Source directory not found. Cannot build from source."
return 1
fi
# Build the binary
local output_binary="/tmp/ring-codereview-run-all"
echo "Building run-all from $source_dir..."
if (cd "$source_dir" && go build -o "$output_binary" ./cmd/run-all/); then
echo "✓ Built successfully: $output_binary"
BINARY="$output_binary"
return 0
else
echo "✗ Build failed"
return 1
fi
}
# Main execution flow using secure_execute_binary
# This ensures atomic verify-and-execute to prevent TOCTOU attacks
if [[ -n "$BINARY" ]]; then
if secure_execute_binary "$BINARY" "$CHECKSUM_FILE" \
--base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output="docs/codereview" --verbose; then
echo "Pre-analysis pipeline completed successfully"
else
echo "⚠️ Binary verification or execution failed"
if build_from_source; then
# Execute the newly built binary (no checksum for local builds)
RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED=true secure_execute_binary "$BINARY" "" \
--base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output="docs/codereview" --verbose
else
echo "⚠️ DEGRADED MODE: Proceeding without pre-analysis"
echo " Reviewers will work without static analysis context."
# Skip to Step 3 (dispatch reviewers)
fi
fi
else
# No binary found - try building from source
echo "No pre-built binary found for ${OS}_${ARCH}"
if build_from_source; then
RING_ALLOW_UNVERIFIED=true secure_execute_binary "$BINARY" "" \
--base="$BASE_SHA" --head="$HEAD_SHA" --output="docs/codereview" --verbose
else
echo "⚠️ DEGRADED MODE: Pre-analysis binary not available"
echo " Reviewers will proceed WITHOUT static analysis context."
# Skip to Step 3 (dispatch reviewers)
fi
fi
preanalysis_timeout input (default 5 minutes)preanalysis_state.success = truepreanalysis_state.success = false, continue to Step 3If pipeline succeeded, read the 6 context files:
| Reviewer | Context File |
|---|---|
ring:code-reviewer | docs/codereview/context-code-reviewer.md |
ring:security-reviewer | docs/codereview/context-security-reviewer.md |
ring:business-logic-reviewer | docs/codereview/context-business-logic-reviewer.md |
ring:test-reviewer | docs/codereview/context-test-reviewer.md |
ring:nil-safety-reviewer | docs/codereview/context-nil-safety-reviewer.md |
ring:consequences-reviewer | docs/codereview/context-consequences-reviewer.md |
Store each file's content in preanalysis_state.context[reviewer_name].
If a context file is missing or empty, log warning and continue (reviewer will work without context).
preanalysis_state = {
enabled: true,
success: false,
context: {
"ring:code-reviewer": null,
"ring:security-reviewer": null,
"ring:business-logic-reviewer": null,
"ring:test-reviewer": null,
"ring:nil-safety-reviewer": null,
"ring:consequences-reviewer": null
}
}
⛔ CRITICAL: All 6 reviewers MUST be dispatched in a SINGLE message with 6 Task calls.
# Task 1: Code Reviewer
Task:
subagent_type: "ring:code-reviewer"
description: "Code review for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## Code Review Request
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]
## Requirements
[requirements]
## Files Changed
[implementation_files or "Use git diff"]
## Pre-Analysis Context
**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.
---
[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:code-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:code-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._
---
## Your Focus
- Architecture and design patterns
- Code quality and maintainability
- Naming conventions
- Error handling patterns
- Performance concerns
## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL
### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |
### What Was Done Well
[positive observations]
# Task 2: Business Logic Reviewer
Task:
subagent_type: "ring:business-logic-reviewer"
description: "Business logic review for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## Business Logic Review Request
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]
## Requirements
[requirements]
## Pre-Analysis Context
**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.
---
[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:business-logic-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:business-logic-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._
---
## Your Focus
- Domain correctness
- Business rules implementation
- Edge cases handling
- Requirements coverage
- Data validation
## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL
### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |
### Requirements Traceability
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|-------------|--------|----------|
| [req] | ✅/❌ | [file:line] |
# Task 3: Security Reviewer
Task:
subagent_type: "ring:security-reviewer"
description: "Security review for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## Security Review Request
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]
## Requirements
[requirements]
## Pre-Analysis Context
**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.
---
[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:security-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:security-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._
---
## Your Focus
- Authentication and authorization
- Input validation
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Sensitive data handling
- OWASP Top 10 risks
## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL
### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | OWASP Category | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [A01-A10] | [fix] |
### Security Checklist
| Check | Status |
|-------|--------|
| Input validation | ✅/❌ |
| Auth checks | ✅/❌ |
| No hardcoded secrets | ✅/❌ |
# Task 4: Test Reviewer
Task:
subagent_type: "ring:test-reviewer"
description: "Test quality review for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## Test Quality Review Request
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]
## Requirements
[requirements]
## Pre-Analysis Context
**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.
---
[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:test-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:test-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._
---
## Your Focus
- Test coverage for business logic
- Edge case testing (empty, null, boundary)
- Error path coverage
- Test independence and isolation
- Assertion quality (not just "no error")
- Test anti-patterns (testing mock behavior)
## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL
### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |
### Test Coverage Analysis
| Test Type | Count | Coverage |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Unit | [N] | [areas] |
| Integration | [N] | [areas] |
| E2E | [N] | [areas] |
# Task 5: Nil-Safety Reviewer
Task:
subagent_type: "ring:nil-safety-reviewer"
description: "Nil/null safety review for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## Nil-Safety Review Request
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
**Languages:** [Go|TypeScript|both - detect from files]
## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]
## Requirements
[requirements]
## Pre-Analysis Context
**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.
---
[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:nil-safety-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:nil-safety-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._
---
## Your Focus
- Nil/null pointer risks in changed code
- Missing nil guards before dereference
- Map access without ok check (Go)
- Type assertions without ok check (Go)
- Optional chaining misuse (TypeScript)
- Error-then-use patterns
## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL
### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |
### Nil Risk Trace
[For each risk: Source → Propagation → Dereference point]
# Task 6: Consequences Reviewer
Task:
subagent_type: "ring:consequences-reviewer"
description: "Consequences review for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## Consequences Review Request
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Base SHA:** [base_sha]
**Head SHA:** [head_sha]
## What Was Implemented
[implementation_summary]
## Requirements
[requirements]
## Pre-Analysis Context
**Static Analysis Results:**
The following findings were automatically extracted by the pre-analysis pipeline.
Use these to INFORM your review, not REPLACE your analysis.
---
[IF preanalysis_state.context["ring:consequences-reviewer"] exists AND is not empty:]
[INSERT the content of preanalysis_state.context["ring:consequences-reviewer"]]
[ELSE:]
_No pre-analysis context available. Perform standard review based on git diff._
---
## Your Focus
- Caller chain impact analysis
- Consumer contract integrity
- Shared state consequences
- Downstream breakage risks
- Ripple effects across modules
- Breaking changes to public APIs
## Required Output
### VERDICT: PASS / FAIL
### Issues Found
| Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|
| [CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [issue] | [location] | [fix] |
### Impact Trace
[For each risk: Changed code → Affected callers → Downstream impact]
Wait for all 6 Task calls to complete.
For each reviewer:
1. Extract VERDICT (PASS/FAIL)
2. Extract Issues Found table
3. Categorize issues by severity
review_state.reviewers.code_reviewer = {
verdict: [PASS/FAIL],
issues: [parsed issues]
}
// ... same for other reviewers
Aggregate all issues by severity:
review_state.aggregated_issues.critical = [all critical from all reviewers]
review_state.aggregated_issues.high = [all high from all reviewers]
// ... etc
Count blocking issues:
blocking_count = critical.length + high.length + medium.length
IF blocking_count == 0:
→ All reviewers PASS
→ Proceed to Step 8 (Success)
IF blocking_count > 0:
→ review_state.iterations += 1
→ IF iterations >= max_iterations: Go to Step 9 (Escalate)
→ Go to Step 6 (Dispatch Fixes)
⛔ CRITICAL: You are an ORCHESTRATOR. You CANNOT edit source files directly. You MUST dispatch the implementation agent to fix ALL review issues.
See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/standards-boundary-enforcement.md for core enforcement rules.
Key prohibition: Edit/Write/Create on source files is FORBIDDEN. Always dispatch agent.
If you catch yourself about to use Edit/Write/Create on source files → STOP. Dispatch agent.
Task:
subagent_type: "[implementation_agent from Gate 0]"
description: "Fix review issues for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
⛔ FIX REQUIRED - Code Review Issues Found
## Context
- **Unit ID:** [unit_id]
- **Iteration:** [iterations] of [max_iterations]
## Critical Issues (MUST FIX)
[list critical issues with file:line and recommendation]
## High Issues (MUST FIX)
[list high issues]
## Medium Issues (MUST FIX)
[list medium issues]
## Requirements
1. Fix ALL Critical, High, and Medium issues
2. Run tests to verify fixes
3. Commit fixes with descriptive message
4. Return list of fixed issues with evidence
## For Low/Cosmetic Issues
Add TODO/FIXME comments:
- Low: `// TODO(review): [Issue] - [reviewer] on [date]`
- Cosmetic: `// FIXME(nitpick): [Issue] - [reviewer] on [date]`
See shared-patterns/orchestrator-direct-editing-anti-rationalization.md for complete anti-rationalization table.
Applies to: Step 6 (Fix dispatch after Ring reviewers) & Step 7.5.3 (Fix dispatch after CodeRabbit)
After fixes committed:
1. Get new HEAD_SHA
2. Go back to Step 3 (dispatch all 6 reviewers again)
⛔ CRITICAL: Always re-run ALL 6 reviewers after fixes.
Do NOT cherry-pick reviewers.
⛔ NEW APPROACH: CodeRabbit validates EACH subtask/task as it completes, accumulating findings to a file.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CODERABBIT PER-UNIT VALIDATION FLOW │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ DURING REVIEW (after each subtask/task Ring reviewers pass): │
│ 1. Run CodeRabbit for that unit's files │
│ 2. Append findings to .coderabbit-findings.md │
│ 3. Continue to next unit │
│ │
│ BEFORE COMMIT (Step 8): │
│ 1. Display accumulated .coderabbit-findings.md │
│ 2. User decides: fix issues OR acknowledge and proceed │
│ │
│ BENEFITS: │
│ • Catches issues close to when code was written │
│ • Smaller scope = faster reviews (7-30 min per unit) │
│ • Issues isolated to specific units, easier to fix │
│ • Accumulated file provides audit trail │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
| Limit Type | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Files reviewed | 200 files/hour | Per review |
| Reviews | 3 back-to-back, then 4/hour | 7 reviews possible in first hour |
| Conversations | 25 back-to-back, then 50/hour | For follow-up questions |
⏱️ TIMING: Each CodeRabbit review takes 7-30+ minutes depending on scope. Run in background and check periodically for completion.
CodeRabbit Installation Check:
which coderabbit || which cr
Used in Step 7.5.1 and after installation to verify CLI availability.
Before attempting Step 7.5, verify your environment supports the required operations:
| Requirement | Local Dev | CI/CD | Containerized | Remote/SSH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
curl | sh install | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ May require elevated permissions | ❌ Often blocked | ⚠️ Depends on config |
Browser auth (coderabbit auth login) | ✅ Yes | ❌ No browser | ❌ No browser | ❌ No browser |
Write to $HOME/.coderabbit/ | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Ephemeral | ⚠️ Ephemeral | ✅ Usually |
Internet access to cli.coderabbit.ai | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Check firewall | ⚠️ Check firewall | ⚠️ Check firewall |
⛔ HARD STOP CONDITIONS - Skip Step 7.5 if ANY apply:
cli.coderabbit.aiStandard flow works: curl | sh install + browser authentication.
Option A: Pre-install in CI image
# Add to your CI Dockerfile
RUN curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh
Option B: Use API token authentication (headless)
# Set token via environment variable (add to CI secrets)
export CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN="your-api-token"
coderabbit auth login --token "$CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN"
Option C: Skip CodeRabbit in CI, run locally
# In CI config, set env var to auto-skip
export SKIP_CODERABBIT_REVIEW=true
# Option 1: Mount credentials from host
docker run -v ~/.coderabbit:/root/.coderabbit ...
# Option 2: Pass token as env var
docker run -e CODERABBIT_API_TOKEN="..." ...
# Option 3: Pre-bake into image (not recommended for tokens)
# Generate API token at: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens
# Then authenticate without browser:
coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ ALL 6 RING REVIEWERS PASSED │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Checking CodeRabbit CLI availability... │
│ │
│ CodeRabbit provides additional AI-powered code review that │
│ catches race conditions, memory leaks, security vulnerabilities,│
│ and edge cases that may complement Ring reviewers. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
⛔ HARD GATE: CodeRabbit Execution Rules (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
| Scenario | Rule | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Installed & authenticated | MANDATORY - CANNOT skip | Run CodeRabbit review, no prompt |
| Not installed | MUST ask user about installation | Present installation option |
| User declines installation | Optional - can proceed | Skip and continue to Step 8 |
Why this distinction:
FLOW:
1. Run CodeRabbit Installation Check
2. IF installed AND authenticated → Run CodeRabbit (MANDATORY, NO prompt, CANNOT skip)
3. IF installed BUT NOT authenticated → Guide authentication (REQUIRED before proceeding)
4. IF NOT installed → MUST ask user about installation (REQUIRED prompt)
5. IF user declines installation → Skip CodeRabbit, proceed to Step 8 (only valid skip path)
| Rationalization | Why It's WRONG | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "CodeRabbit is optional, I'll skip it" | If installed, it's MANDATORY. Optional only means installation is optional. | Run CodeRabbit if installed |
| "Ring reviewers passed, that's enough" | Different tools catch different issues. CodeRabbit complements Ring. | Run CodeRabbit if installed |
| "User didn't ask for CodeRabbit" | User installed it. Installation = consent to mandatory execution. | Run CodeRabbit if installed |
| "Takes too long, skip this time" | Time is irrelevant. Installed = mandatory. | Run CodeRabbit if installed |
| "I'll just proceed without asking about install" | MUST ask every user if they want to install. No silent skips. | Ask user about installation |
Run the CodeRabbit Installation Check command.
IF INSTALLED AND AUTHENTICATED → MANDATORY EXECUTION (CANNOT SKIP):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI detected - MANDATORY EXECUTION │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ CodeRabbit CLI is installed and authenticated. │
│ │
│ ⛔ CodeRabbit review is MANDATORY when installed. │
│ This step CANNOT be skipped. Proceeding automatically... │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ Proceed directly to Step 7.5.2 (Run CodeRabbit Review) - NO user prompt, NO skip option
IF NOT INSTALLED → MUST ASK USER (REQUIRED PROMPT):
⛔ You MUST present this prompt to the user. Silent skips are FORBIDDEN.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ⚠️ CodeRabbit CLI not found - INSTALLATION PROMPT REQUIRED │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ CodeRabbit CLI is not installed on your system. │
│ │
│ CodeRabbit provides additional AI-powered review that catches: │
│ • Race conditions and concurrency issues │
│ • Memory leaks and resource management │
│ • Security vulnerabilities │
│ • Edge cases missed by other reviewers │
│ │
│ ⛔ You MUST choose one of the following options: │
│ │
│ (a) Yes, install CodeRabbit CLI (I'll guide you) │
│ (b) No, skip CodeRabbit and proceed to Gate 5 │
│ │
│ ⚠️ ENVIRONMENT CHECK: │
│ • Interactive terminal with browser? → Standard install │
│ • CI/headless? → Requires API token auth │
│ • Container? → See Environment-Specific Guidance above │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
If user selects (a) Yes, install: → Proceed to Installation Flow below
If user selects (b) No, skip:
→ Record: "CodeRabbit review: SKIPPED (not installed, user declined installation)"
→ Proceed to Step 8 (Success Output)
→ This is the ONLY valid path to skip CodeRabbit
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📦 INSTALLING CODERABBIT CLI │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ⚠️ ENVIRONMENT CHECK FIRST: │
│ │
│ This installation requires: │
│ • curl command available │
│ • Write access to $HOME or /usr/local/bin │
│ • Internet access to cli.coderabbit.ai │
│ • Non-containerized environment (or persistent storage) │
│ │
│ If in CI/container, see "Environment-Specific Guidance" above. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Check environment before proceeding:
# Verify prerequisites
curl --version && echo "curl: OK" || echo "curl: MISSING"
test -w "$HOME" && echo "HOME writable: OK" || echo "HOME writable: NO"
curl -sI https://cli.coderabbit.ai | head -1 | grep -q "200\|301\|302" && echo "Network: OK" || echo "Network: BLOCKED"
If prerequisites pass, install:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📦 Step 1: Installing CodeRabbit CLI... │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
# Step 1: Download and install CodeRabbit CLI
curl -fsSL https://cli.coderabbit.ai/install.sh | sh
After installation, verify: Run the CodeRabbit Installation Check command.
If installation successful:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI installed successfully! │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Step 2: Authentication required │
│ │
│ Choose your authentication method: │
│ │
│ (a) Browser login (interactive - opens browser) │
│ → Best for: Local development with GUI │
│ → Command: coderabbit auth login │
│ │
│ (b) API token (headless - no browser needed) │
│ → Best for: CI/CD, containers, SSH sessions │
│ → Get token: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens│
│ → Command: coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxx" │
│ │
│ (c) Skip authentication and CodeRabbit review │
│ │
│ Note: Free tier allows 1 review/hour. │
│ Paid plans get enhanced reviews + higher limits. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
If user selects (a) Browser login:
# Step 2a: Authenticate with CodeRabbit (opens browser)
# ⚠️ Requires: GUI environment with default browser
coderabbit auth login
If user selects (b) API token:
# Step 2b: Authenticate with API token (headless)
# Get your token from: https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/api-tokens
coderabbit auth login --token "cr_xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
After authentication:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ CodeRabbit CLI ready! │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Installation: Complete │
│ Authentication: Complete │
│ │
│ Proceeding to CodeRabbit review... │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ Proceed to Step 7.5.2 (Run CodeRabbit Review)
If installation failed:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ❌ CodeRabbit CLI installation failed │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Error: [error message from curl/sh] │
│ │
│ Troubleshooting: │
│ • Check internet connection │
│ • Try manual install: https://docs.coderabbit.ai/cli/overview │
│ • macOS/Linux only (Windows not supported yet) │
│ │
│ Would you like to: │
│ (a) Retry installation │
│ (b) Skip CodeRabbit and proceed to Gate 5 │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
⛔ GRANULAR VALIDATION: CodeRabbit MUST validate at the most granular level available.
DETERMINE VALIDATION SCOPE:
1. Check if current work has subtasks (from gate0_handoff or implementation context)
2. IF subtasks exist → Validate EACH SUBTASK separately
3. IF no subtasks → Validate the TASK as a whole
WHY GRANULAR VALIDATION:
- Subtask-level validation catches issues early
- Easier to pinpoint which subtask introduced problems
- Prevents "works for task A, breaks task B" scenarios
- Enables incremental fixes without re-running entire review
Step 7.5.2a: Determine Validation Scope
validation_scope = {
mode: null, // "subtask" or "task"
units: [], // list of {id, files, commits} to validate
current_index: 0
}
IF gate0_handoff.subtasks exists AND gate0_handoff.subtasks.length > 0:
→ validation_scope.mode = "subtask"
→ FOR EACH subtask in gate0_handoff.subtasks:
→ Get files changed by this subtask (from commits or file mapping)
→ Add to validation_scope.units: {
id: subtask.id,
name: subtask.name,
files: [files touched by this subtask],
base_sha: [sha before subtask],
head_sha: [sha after subtask]
}
Display:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📋 CODERABBIT VALIDATION MODE: SUBTASK-LEVEL │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Detected [N] subtasks. Will validate each separately: │
│ │
│ 1. [subtask-1-id]: [subtask-1-name] │
│ Files: [file1.go, file2.go] │
│ │
│ 2. [subtask-2-id]: [subtask-2-name] │
│ Files: [file3.go, file4.go] │
│ │
│ ... (up to N subtasks) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
ELSE:
→ validation_scope.mode = "task"
→ Add single unit: {
id: unit_id,
name: implementation_summary,
files: implementation_files,
base_sha: base_sha,
head_sha: head_sha
}
Display:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📋 CODERABBIT VALIDATION MODE: TASK-LEVEL │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ No subtasks detected. Validating entire task: │
│ │
│ Task: [unit_id] │
│ Files: [N] files changed │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Step 7.5.2b: Run CodeRabbit for Each Validation Unit
coderabbit_results = {
overall_status: "PASS", // PASS only if ALL units pass
units: []
}
FOR EACH unit IN validation_scope.units:
Display:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔍 VALIDATING: [unit.id] ([current]/[total]) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Name: [unit.name] │
│ Files: [unit.files.join(", ")] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
# Run CodeRabbit review
# ⏱️ TIMING: 7-30+ minutes per review. Run in background if possible.
# Compare against base branch
coderabbit --prompt-only --type uncommitted --base [base_branch]
# Compare against specific commit on current branch
coderabbit --prompt-only --type uncommitted --base-commit [unit.base_sha]
# The command is synchronous - it completes when output is returned
Parse output and record:
unit_result = {
id: unit.id,
status: "PASS" | "ISSUES_FOUND",
issues: {
critical: [list],
high: [list],
medium: [list],
low: [list]
}
}
coderabbit_results.units.push(unit_result)
IF unit_result.issues.critical.length > 0 OR unit_result.issues.high.length > 0:
→ coderabbit_results.overall_status = "ISSUES_FOUND"
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
⛔ MANDATORY: APPEND FINDINGS TO .coderabbit-findings.md
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
After EACH unit validation, append results to findings file:
IF .coderabbit-findings.md does NOT exist:
→ Create file with header (see "Findings File Format" below)
APPEND to .coderabbit-findings.md:
Validated: [timestamp] Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND] Files: [unit.files.join(", ")]
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [severity] | [description] | [file:line] | [recommendation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
This ensures ALL findings are accumulated for review before commit.
AFTER ALL UNITS VALIDATED:
Display summary:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📊 CODERABBIT VALIDATION SUMMARY │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Mode: [SUBTASK-LEVEL | TASK-LEVEL] │
│ Units Validated: [N] │
│ Overall Status: [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND] │
│ │
│ Per-Unit Results: │
│ ┌──────────────┬────────────┬──────┬──────┬────────┬─────┐ │
│ │ Unit ID │ Status │ Crit │ High │ Medium │ Low │ │
│ ├──────────────┼────────────┼──────┼──────┼────────┼─────┤ │
│ │ [subtask-1] │ ✅ PASS │ 0 │ 0 │ 0 │ 1 │ │
│ │ [subtask-2] │ ❌ ISSUES │ 1 │ 2 │ 0 │ 0 │ │
│ └──────────────┴────────────┴──────┴──────┴────────┴─────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Parse CodeRabbit output for:
This file accumulates ALL CodeRabbit findings across all validated units.
# CodeRabbit Findings
**Generated:** [initial timestamp]
**Last Updated:** [latest timestamp]
**Total Units Validated:** [N]
**Overall Status:** [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND]
## Summary
| Severity | Count | Status |
|----------|-------|--------|
| Critical | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
| High | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
| Medium | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
| Low | [N] | [N pending / N fixed] |
---
## Unit: [subtask-1-id] - [subtask-1-name]
**Validated:** [timestamp]
**Status:** [PASS | ISSUES_FOUND]
**Files:** [file1.go, file2.go]
### Issues Found
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Recommendation | Status |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|----------------|--------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition in handler | handler.go:45 | Use sync.Mutex | PENDING |
| 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error return | repo.go:123 | Handle error | PENDING |
---
## Unit: [subtask-2-id] - [subtask-2-name]
**Validated:** [timestamp]
**Status:** PASS
**Files:** [file3.go]
### Issues Found
_No issues found._
---
[... additional units ...]
File Location: Project root (.coderabbit-findings.md)
Lifecycle:
⛔ CRITICAL: You are an ORCHESTRATOR. You CANNOT edit source files directly. You MUST dispatch the implementation agent to fix issues.
⛔ GRANULAR FIX DISPATCH: Fixes MUST be dispatched per-unit (subtask or task).
IF coderabbit_results.overall_status == "ISSUES_FOUND":
→ FIRST: Display EACH issue in detail (REQUIRED before any action):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ⚠️ CODERABBIT ISSUES FOUND - DETAILED DESCRIPTION │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ UNIT: [subtask-1] - [subtask name] │
│ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│
│ Issue #1 [CRITICAL] │
│ Description: Race condition in concurrent request handler │
│ File: src/handler.go:45 │
│ Code Context: │
│ 43 | func (h *Handler) Process(ctx context.Context) { │
│ 44 | h.counter++ // ← NOT THREAD-SAFE │
│ 45 | data := h.sharedMap[key] │
│ Why it matters: Multiple goroutines can corrupt shared state │
│ Recommendation: Use sync.Mutex or atomic operations │
│ │
│ Issue #2 [HIGH] │
│ Description: Unchecked error return from database query │
│ File: src/repo.go:123 │
│ Code Context: │
│ 121 | func (r *Repo) GetUser(id string) (*User, error) { │
│ 122 | result, _ := r.db.Query(query, id) // ← IGNORED │
│ 123 | return parseUser(result), nil │
│ Why it matters: Silent failures can cause data corruption │
│ Recommendation: Check and handle the error properly │
│ │
│ UNIT: [subtask-2] - [subtask name] │
│ ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────│
│ Issue #3 [HIGH] │
│ Description: SQL injection vulnerability │
│ File: src/query.go:89 │
│ Code Context: │
│ 87 | func BuildQuery(userInput string) string { │
│ 88 | return fmt.Sprintf("SELECT * FROM users WHERE │
│ 89 | name = '%s'", userInput) // ← INJECTABLE │
│ Why it matters: Attacker can execute arbitrary SQL │
│ Recommendation: Use parameterized queries │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ THEN: Ask user for action:
"CodeRabbit found [N] issues in [M] units. What would you like to do?"
(a) Fix all issues - dispatch implementation agent per unit
(b) Proceed to Gate 5 (acknowledge risk)
(c) Review findings in detail (show code context)
IF user selects (a) Fix issues:
→ ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly
→ FOR EACH unit WITH issues (validation_scope.units where status == "ISSUES_FOUND"):
Display:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔧 DISPATCHING FIX: [unit.id] ([current]/[total with issues]) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Unit: [unit.name] │
│ Critical Issues: [N] │
│ High Issues: [N] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ DISPATCH implementation agent with unit-specific findings:
Task:
subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
description: "Fix CodeRabbit issues for [unit.id]"
prompt: |
## CodeRabbit Issues to Fix - [unit.id]
**Scope:** This fix is for [subtask/task]: [unit.name]
**Files in Scope:** [unit.files.join(", ")]
The following issues were found by CodeRabbit CLI external review
for THIS SPECIFIC [subtask/task].
⚠️ IMPORTANT: Only fix issues in files belonging to this unit:
[unit.files list]
### Critical Issues
[list from unit.issues.critical]
### High Issues
[list from unit.issues.high]
## Requirements
1. Fix each issue following Ring Standards
2. Only modify files in scope: [unit.files]
3. Run tests to verify fixes don't break functionality
4. Commit fixes with message referencing unit: "fix([unit.id]): [description]"
→ Wait for agent to complete
→ Record fix result for this unit
→ VALIDATE EACH ISSUE INDIVIDUALLY:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔍 VALIDATING FIXES FOR: [unit.id] │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Each issue MUST be validated individually: │
│ │
│ Issue #1: [issue description] │
│ File: [file:line] │
│ Severity: CRITICAL │
│ Fix Applied: [description of fix] │
│ Validation: ✅ RESOLVED / ❌ NOT RESOLVED │
│ Evidence: [code snippet or test result] │
│ │
│ Issue #2: [issue description] │
│ File: [file:line] │
│ Severity: HIGH │
│ Fix Applied: [description of fix] │
│ Validation: ✅ RESOLVED / ❌ NOT RESOLVED │
│ Evidence: [code snippet or test result] │
│ │
│ ... (repeat for ALL issues) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ IF any issue NOT RESOLVED:
→ Identify the correct agent for re-dispatch:
- Check gate0_handoff.implementation_agent (if available)
- OR infer from file type:
- *.go files → ring:backend-engineer-golang
- *.ts files (backend) → ring:backend-engineer-typescript
- *.ts/*.tsx files (frontend) → ring:frontend-engineer
- *.yaml/*.yml (infra) → ring:devops-engineer
→ Re-dispatch ONLY unresolved issues to the correct agent:
Task:
subagent_type: "[correct agent based on file type or gate0_handoff]"
model: "opus"
description: "Retry fix for unresolved issues in [unit.id]"
prompt: |
## RETRY: Unresolved CodeRabbit Issues - [unit.id]
Previous fix attempt did NOT resolve these issues.
This is attempt [N] of 2 maximum.
### Unresolved Issues (MUST FIX)
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Previous Attempt | Why It Failed |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|------------------|---------------|
| [issue.id] | [severity] | [description] | [file:line] | [what was tried] | [why not resolved] |
### Requirements
1. Review the previous fix attempt and understand why it failed
2. Apply a different/better solution
3. Verify the fix resolves the issue
4. Run relevant tests
5. Commit with message: "fix([unit.id]): retry [issue description]"
→ Max 2 fix attempts per issue
→ IF issue still NOT RESOLVED after 2 attempts:
→ Mark as UNRESOLVED_ESCALATE
→ Add to escalation report for manual review
→ Record per-issue validation results:
unit_validation = {
id: unit.id,
issues_validated: [
{
issue_id: 1,
description: "[issue]",
severity: "CRITICAL",
file: "[file:line]",
fix_applied: "[description]",
status: "RESOLVED" | "NOT_RESOLVED",
evidence: "[snippet or test]",
attempts: 1
},
...
],
all_resolved: true | false
}
→ AFTER ALL UNITS FIXED:
Display:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✅ FIX DISPATCH COMPLETE │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Units Fixed: [N] / [total with issues] │
│ Total Issues Validated: [N] │
│ Issues Resolved: [N] / [N] │
│ │
│ Per-Unit Fix Status: │
│ ┌──────────────┬────────────┬───────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Unit ID │ Status │ Commit │ │
│ ├──────────────┼────────────┼───────────────────────┤ │
│ │ [subtask-1] │ ✅ FIXED │ abc123 │ │
│ │ [subtask-2] │ ✅ FIXED │ def456 │ │
│ └──────────────┴────────────┴───────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Issue-Level Validation Details: │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ UNIT: [subtask-1] │ │
│ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │
│ │ #1 [CRITICAL] Race condition in handler │ │
│ │ File: src/handler.go:45 │ │
│ │ Fix: Added mutex lock │ │
│ │ Status: ✅ RESOLVED │ │
│ │ Evidence: Test race_test.go passes │ │
│ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │
│ │ #2 [HIGH] Unchecked error return │ │
│ │ File: src/handler.go:67 │ │
│ │ Fix: Added error check with proper handling │ │
│ │ Status: ✅ RESOLVED │ │
│ │ Evidence: Error path verified in unit test │ │
│ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
LEGACY FLOW (when validation_scope.mode == "task"):
IF CodeRabbit found CRITICAL or HIGH issues:
→ Display findings to user
→ Ask: "CodeRabbit found [N] critical/high issues. Fix now or proceed anyway?"
(a) Fix issues - dispatch to implementation agent
(b) Proceed to Gate 5 (acknowledge risk)
(c) Review findings in detail
IF user selects (a) Fix issues:
→ ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly
→ DISPATCH implementation agent with CodeRabbit findings:
Task:
subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
model: "opus"
description: "Fix CodeRabbit issues for [unit_id]"
prompt: |
## CodeRabbit Issues to Fix
The following issues were found by CodeRabbit CLI external review.
Fix ALL Critical and High severity issues.
### Critical Issues
[list from CodeRabbit output]
### High Issues
[list from CodeRabbit output]
## Requirements
1. Fix each issue following Ring Standards
2. Run tests to verify fixes don't break functionality
3. Commit fixes with descriptive message
→ After agent completes, re-run CodeRabbit: `coderabbit --prompt-only`
→ If CodeRabbit issues remain, repeat fix cycle (max 2 iterations for CodeRabbit)
→ ⛔ AFTER CodeRabbit passes, MUST re-run Ring reviewers:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔄 RE-RUNNING RING REVIEWERS AFTER CODERABBIT FIXES │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ CodeRabbit fixes may have introduced new issues detectable by │
│ Ring reviewers. Re-validation is MANDATORY before Gate 5. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Step 7.5.3a: Re-Run All 6 Ring Reviewers
─────────────────────────────────────────
1. Get new HEAD_SHA after CodeRabbit fixes
2. Dispatch all 6 reviewers in parallel (per Step 3):
- ring:code-reviewer
- ring:business-logic-reviewer
- ring:security-reviewer
- ring:test-reviewer
- ring:nil-safety-reviewer
- ring:consequences-reviewer
3. Wait for all 6 to complete
Step 7.5.3b: Handle Ring Reviewer Results
─────────────────────────────────────────
IF all 6 Ring reviewers PASS:
→ Proceed to Step 8 (Success Output)
IF any Ring reviewer finds CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM issues:
→ Increment ring_revalidation_iterations counter
→ IF ring_revalidation_iterations >= 2:
→ ESCALATE: "Max iterations reached after CodeRabbit fixes"
→ Go to Step 9 (Escalate)
→ DISPATCH implementation agent to fix Ring reviewer issues
→ After fixes committed:
→ Re-run CodeRabbit: `coderabbit --prompt-only`
→ IF CodeRabbit passes:
→ Re-run all 6 Ring reviewers (loop back to Step 7.5.3a)
→ IF CodeRabbit finds issues:
→ Fix CodeRabbit issues first, then re-run Ring reviewers
State tracking for CodeRabbit fix cycle:
```
coderabbit_fix_state = {
coderabbit_iterations: 0, // max 2 for CodeRabbit-only fixes
ring_revalidation_iterations: 0, // max 2 for Ring reviewer re-runs
total_max_iterations: 4 // absolute cap: 2 CR + 2 Ring
}
```
IF CodeRabbit found only MEDIUM/LOW issues:
→ Display summary
→ ⛔ DO NOT edit files directly to add TODOs
→ DISPATCH implementation agent to add TODO comments:
Task:
subagent_type: "[same agent used in Gate 0]"
description: "Add TODO comments for CodeRabbit findings"
prompt: |
Add TODO comments for these CodeRabbit findings:
[list MEDIUM/LOW issues with file:line]
Format: // TODO(coderabbit): [issue description]
→ After TODO comments added (code changed):
→ Re-run all 6 Ring reviewers (per Step 7.5.3a above)
→ IF Ring reviewers PASS: Proceed to Step 8
→ IF Ring reviewers find issues: Fix and re-run (max 2 iterations)
IF CodeRabbit found no issues:
→ Display: "✅ CodeRabbit review passed - no additional issues found"
→ No code changes made by CodeRabbit flow
→ Proceed directly to Step 8 (no Ring re-run needed)
See shared-patterns/orchestrator-direct-editing-anti-rationalization.md - same table applies here.
Applies to: Step 6 (Fix dispatch after Ring reviewers) & Step 7.5.3 (Fix dispatch after CodeRabbit)
## CodeRabbit External Review
**Status:** [PASS|ISSUES_FOUND|SKIPPED]
**Validation Mode:** [SUBTASK-LEVEL|TASK-LEVEL]
**Units Validated:** [N]
**Total Issues Found:** [N]
**Issues Resolved:** [N]/[N]
### Per-Unit Validation Results
| Unit ID | Unit Name | Status | Critical | High | Medium | Low |
|---------|-----------|--------|----------|------|--------|-----|
| [subtask-1] | [name] | ✅ PASS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| [subtask-2] | [name] | ✅ FIXED | 1→0 | 2→0 | 0 | 0 |
| [task-id] | [name] | ✅ PASS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
### Issues Found - Detailed Description (ALWAYS shown when issues exist)
#### Unit: [subtask-2]
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Code Context | Why It Matters | Recommendation |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|--------------|----------------|----------------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition | handler.go:45 | `h.counter++` not thread-safe | Corrupts shared state | Use sync.Mutex |
| 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error | repo.go:123 | `result, _ := r.db.Query()` | Silent failures | Handle error |
| 3 | HIGH | SQL injection | query.go:89 | `fmt.Sprintf("...%s", input)` | Security breach | Parameterized query |
### Issue-Level Validation (REQUIRED after fixes are applied)
#### Unit: [subtask-2]
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Fix Applied | Status | Evidence |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|--------|----------|
| 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition in concurrent handler | handler.go:45 | Added mutex lock around shared state | ✅ RESOLVED | race_test.go passes |
| 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error from DB query | repo.go:123 | Added error check with rollback | ✅ RESOLVED | Error path tested |
| 3 | HIGH | SQL injection vulnerability | query.go:89 | Used parameterized query | ✅ RESOLVED | Security test added |
#### Unit: [subtask-3] (if applicable)
| # | Severity | Description | File:Line | Fix Applied | Status | Evidence |
|---|----------|-------------|-----------|-------------|--------|----------|
| 1 | HIGH | Missing input validation | api.go:34 | Added validation middleware | ✅ RESOLVED | Fuzz test passes |
### Overall Summary by Severity
| Severity | Found | Resolved | Remaining | Action |
|----------|-------|----------|-----------|--------|
| Critical | [N] | [N] | 0 | Fixed |
| High | [N] | [N] | 0 | Fixed |
| Medium | [N] | [N] | 0 | TODO added |
| Low | [N] | - | [N] | TODO added |
⛔ CodeRabbit can ONLY be skipped in these specific scenarios. Any other skip is a VIOLATION.
| Scenario | Record As | Next Step | Why Valid |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLI not installed, user explicitly declines install | SKIPPED (not installed, user declined) | Step 8 | User was asked and chose not to install |
| Installation failed after attempt, user skips | SKIPPED (installation failed) | Step 8 | Technical failure, user informed |
| Authentication failed after attempt, user skips | SKIPPED (auth failed) | Step 8 | Technical failure, user informed |
| Environment doesn't support (CI/container) | SKIPPED (unsupported environment) | Step 8 | Technical limitation |
⛔ INVALID SKIP SCENARIOS (FORBIDDEN):
| Invalid Scenario | Why FORBIDDEN | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| CLI installed but "skipped for speed" | Installed = MANDATORY | Run CodeRabbit |
| CLI installed but "Ring reviewers passed" | Complementary tools, both required | Run CodeRabbit |
| CLI not installed, no prompt shown | MUST ask user about installation | Show installation prompt |
| Silent skip without user interaction | All skips require explicit user choice | Ask user |
⛔ NON-NEGOTIABLE: When CodeRabbit CLI IS installed and authenticated, execution is MANDATORY - it CANNOT be skipped under any circumstance.
⛔ BEFORE generating success output, MUST display accumulated CodeRabbit findings.
IF .coderabbit-findings.md exists:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📋 CODERABBIT FINDINGS - ACCUMULATED DURING REVIEW │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ The following issues were identified by CodeRabbit during the │
│ review process. Review before proceeding to commit. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ Display contents of .coderabbit-findings.md
→ Show summary table:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📊 CODERABBIT FINDINGS SUMMARY │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ | Severity | Count | Status | │
│ |----------|-------|--------| │
│ | Critical | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │
│ | High | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │
│ | Medium | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │
│ | Low | [N] | [pending/fixed] | │
│ │
│ Total Issues: [N] | Fixed: [N] | Pending: [N] │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ Ask user:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ❓ ACTION REQUIRED │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ [N] CodeRabbit issues are pending. What would you like to do? │
│ │
│ (a) Fix all pending issues now (dispatch implementation agent)│
│ (b) Review and fix issues one-by-one (interactive mode) │
│ (c) Acknowledge and proceed to commit (issues documented) │
│ │
│ Note: Choosing (c) will include findings file in commit for │
│ tracking. Issues remain documented for future fixing. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
IF user selects (a) Fix all issues:
→ Dispatch implementation agent with ALL pending issues from findings file
→ After fixes, update .coderabbit-findings.md (mark issues as FIXED)
→ Re-run CodeRabbit validation for affected files
→ Loop back to Step 8.1 to display updated findings
IF user selects (b) Interactive mode (one-by-one):
→ Go to Step 8.1.1 (Interactive Issue Review)
IF user selects (c) Acknowledge and proceed:
→ Record: "CodeRabbit issues acknowledged by user"
→ Include .coderabbit-findings.md in commit (for audit trail)
→ Proceed to Step 8.2 (Success Output)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Step 8.1.1: Interactive Issue Review (One-by-One)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
issues_to_fix = []
issues_to_skip = []
FOR EACH issue IN pending_issues (ordered by severity: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW):
Display:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🔍 ISSUE [current]/[total] - [SEVERITY] │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Unit: [unit.id] - [unit.name] │
│ File: [file:line] │
│ │
│ Description: │
│ [issue description] │
│ │
│ Code Context: │
│ [code snippet around the issue] │
│ │
│ Why it matters: │
│ [explanation of impact] │
│ │
│ Recommendation: │
│ [suggested fix] │
│ │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ What would you like to do with this issue? │
│ │
│ (f) Fix this issue │
│ (s) Skip this issue (acknowledge) │
│ (a) Fix ALL remaining issues │
│ (k) Skip ALL remaining issues │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
IF user selects (f) Fix:
→ Add to issues_to_fix list
→ Continue to next issue
IF user selects (s) Skip:
→ Add to issues_to_skip list
→ Continue to next issue
IF user selects (a) Fix ALL remaining:
→ Add current + all remaining to issues_to_fix list
→ Break loop
IF user selects (k) Skip ALL remaining:
→ Add current + all remaining to issues_to_skip list
→ Break loop
AFTER loop completes:
Display summary:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 📋 INTERACTIVE REVIEW COMPLETE │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Issues to fix: [N] │
│ [list of issues selected for fixing] │
│ │
│ Issues to skip: [N] │
│ [list of issues selected to skip] │
│ │
│ Proceed with this selection? (y/n) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
IF user confirms (y):
IF issues_to_fix.length > 0:
→ Dispatch implementation agent with ONLY issues_to_fix
→ After fixes, update .coderabbit-findings.md:
- Mark fixed issues as FIXED
- Mark skipped issues as ACKNOWLEDGED
→ Re-run CodeRabbit validation for affected files
→ Loop back to Step 8.1
ELSE:
→ All issues skipped/acknowledged
→ Proceed to Step 8.2 (Success Output)
IF user cancels (n):
→ Return to Step 8.1 main prompt
ELSE (no findings file exists):
→ CodeRabbit was skipped or found no issues
→ Proceed directly to Step 8.2 (Success Output)
Generate skill output:
## Review Summary
**Status:** PASS
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Iterations:** [review_state.iterations]
## Issues by Severity
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | 0 |
| High | 0 |
| Medium | 0 |
| Low | [count] |
| Cosmetic | [count] |
## Reviewer Verdicts
| Reviewer | Verdict | Issues |
|----------|---------|--------|
| ring:code-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:business-logic-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:security-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:test-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:nil-safety-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
| ring:consequences-reviewer | ✅ PASS | [count] |
## Low/Cosmetic Issues (TODO/FIXME added)
[list with file locations]
## CodeRabbit Findings
**Findings File:** .coderabbit-findings.md
**Total Issues Found:** [N]
**Issues Fixed:** [N]
**Issues Acknowledged:** [N]
**Status:** [ALL_FIXED | ACKNOWLEDGED | NO_ISSUES]
## Handoff to Next Gate
- Review status: COMPLETE
- All blocking issues: RESOLVED
- Reviewers passed: 6/6
- CodeRabbit findings: [status]
- Ready for Gate 5 (Validation): YES
Generate skill output:
## Review Summary
**Status:** FAIL
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Iterations:** [max_iterations] (MAX REACHED)
## Issues by Severity
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | [count] |
| High | [count] |
| Medium | [count] |
## Unresolved Issues
[list all Critical/High/Medium still open]
## Reviewer Verdicts
| Reviewer | Verdict |
|----------|---------|
| ring:code-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:business-logic-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:security-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:test-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:nil-safety-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
| ring:consequences-reviewer | [PASS/FAIL] |
## Handoff to Next Gate
- Review status: FAILED
- Unresolved blocking issues: [count]
- Ready for Gate 5: NO
- **Action Required:** User must manually resolve issues
⛔ ESCALATION: Max iterations (3) reached. Blocking issues remain.
See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md for universal pressure scenarios.
| User Says | Your Response |
|---|---|
| "Skip review, code is simple" | "Simple code can have security issues. Dispatching all 6 reviewers." |
| "Just run ring:code-reviewer" | "All 6 reviewers run in parallel. No time saved by skipping." |
| "Fix later, merge now" | "Blocking issues (Critical/High/Medium) MUST be fixed before Gate 5." |
See dev-team/skills/shared-patterns/shared-anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations.
| Rationalization | Why It's WRONG | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Run reviewers one at a time" | Sequential = slow. Parallel = 6x faster. | Dispatch all 6 in single message |
| "Skip security for internal code" | Internal code can have vulnerabilities. | Include ring:security-reviewer |
| "Critical issue is false positive" | Prove it with evidence, don't assume. | Fix or provide evidence |
| "Low issues don't need TODO" | TODOs ensure issues aren't forgotten. | Add TODO comments |
| "5 of 6 reviewers passed" | Gate 4 requires ALL 6. 5/6 = 0/6. | Re-run ALL 6 reviewers |
| "MEDIUM is not blocking" | MEDIUM = MUST FIX. Same as CRITICAL/HIGH. | Fix MEDIUM issues NOW |
## Review Summary
**Status:** [PASS|FAIL|NEEDS_FIXES]
**Unit ID:** [unit_id]
**Duration:** [Xm Ys]
**Iterations:** [N]
## Issues by Severity
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | [N] |
| High | [N] |
| Medium | [N] |
| Low | [N] |
## Reviewer Verdicts
| Reviewer | Verdict |
|----------|---------|
| ring:code-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:business-logic-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:security-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:test-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:nil-safety-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
| ring:consequences-reviewer | ✅/❌ |
## CodeRabbit External Review (MANDATORY if installed, Optional to install)
**Status:** [PASS|ISSUES_FOUND|SKIPPED|NOT_INSTALLED]
**Validation Mode:** [SUBTASK-LEVEL|TASK-LEVEL]
**Units Validated:** [N]
**Units Passed:** [N]/[N]
**Issues Found:** [N]
**Issues Resolved:** [N]/[N]
### Per-Unit Results (if subtask-level)
| Unit ID | Status | Critical | High | Medium | Low |
|---------|--------|----------|------|--------|-----|
| [subtask-1] | ✅ PASS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| [subtask-2] | ✅ FIXED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
### Issue-Level Validation (REQUIRED when issues were fixed)
| Unit | # | Severity | Description | Fix Applied | Status | Evidence |
|------|---|----------|-------------|-------------|--------|----------|
| subtask-2 | 1 | CRITICAL | Race condition | Mutex added | ✅ RESOLVED | Test passes |
| subtask-2 | 2 | HIGH | Unchecked error | Error handling added | ✅ RESOLVED | Test passes |
## Handoff to Next Gate
- Review status: [COMPLETE|FAILED]
- Blocking issues: [resolved|N remaining]
- CodeRabbit: [PASS|SKIPPED|N issues acknowledged]
- CodeRabbit validation: [N]/[N] units passed
- Ready for Gate 5: [YES|NO]
Orchestrates the 6-gate development workflow for implementing tasks. Manages state, dispatches specialist agents, and enforces gate requirements.
Captures metrics and learnings from completed development cycles. Enables continuous improvement by analyzing patterns across cycles.
Controlled plan execution with human review checkpoints - loads plan, executes in batches, pauses for feedback. Supports one-go (autonomous) or batch modes.
Guide to the dev-team skills - specialist developer agents and 6-gate development cycle. Provides backend engineers (Go/TypeScript), frontend engineers, DevOps, SRE, and QA agents.
Skill discovery workflow and agent dispatch patterns for every conversation.
Generate beautiful, self-contained HTML pages that visually explain systems, code changes, plans, and data. Use when the user asks for a diagram, architecture overview, diff review, plan review, project recap, comparison table, or any visual explanation of technical concepts. Also use proactively when you are about to render a complex ASCII table (4+ rows or 3+ columns) — present it as a styled HTML page instead.