| name | claude-review |
| description | Request a code review from Claude Code, implement or evaluate the feedback, and iterate until the review converges. Use when the user asks for a "Claude review", wants feedback from Claude Code, asks for a second opinion from Claude, or wants an iterative review loop between Codex and Claude on the same set of changes. |
Claude Review
Use Claude Code as a persistent reviewer while you stay responsible for the edits. Keep Claude invocations out of the main context by delegating them to a subagent, and keep the same Claude session alive across rounds so the review can converge instead of restarting from scratch.
The helper script is at scripts/claude_review.py. It wraps claude -p for the initial call and claude --resume for follow-up rounds, and it always returns:
SESSION_ID: <uuid>
REVIEW:
<review text>
Step 1: Determine what to review
Figure out the review scope from the user request and repository state.
- Use
uncommitted for staged, unstaged, and untracked work.
- Use
base for branch review against a base branch.
- Use
commit for a specific commit.
- Use
both when the branch has commits ahead of the base branch and there are also uncommitted changes.
- Use
files when the target is not in a git repository or when the user wants Claude to review specific files directly.
If the user does not specify the scope, inspect the repo:
- Run
git status --short and git diff --stat to see whether there are uncommitted changes.
- Discover the default branch with
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'.
- If that fails, check for
main and then master.
- Run
git log --oneline <default-branch>..HEAD to see whether the current branch is ahead.
- Choose
uncommitted, base, or both from that state.
If the directory is not a git repo, skip the git-based scope detection and use files with a short --scope-context such as Review only SKILL.md and scripts/claude_review.py in this directory.
If there is nothing meaningful to review, stop and tell the user.
Step 2: Call Claude through a subagent
Do not run the Claude CLI directly in the main thread unless there is no subagent option. Spawn a worker subagent so the Claude command output and retries do not pollute the main context.
The subagent owns only the Claude invocation. It should not edit files. It should return either the helper script's stdout verbatim or an ERROR: line.
Run the subagent from the repository root.
Initial review
Tell the subagent to run:
SKILL_DIR=/absolute/path/to/this/installed/claude-review/skill
python3 "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/claude_review.py" initial \
--repo-root <repo-root> \
--scope <uncommitted|base|both|commit|files> \
--scope-context '<scope restated in one sentence>' \
[--base-branch <branch>] \
[--commit <sha>] \
[--user-request '<original request>']
Notes:
- Let the script generate the session id unless you have a reason to supply one.
- Always provide
--scope-context, even for git-backed scopes. Reuse the same sentence on resume.
- For
base and both, name the base branch in --scope-context. For commit, include the commit SHA in --scope-context.
- Prefer Claude to inspect the repo itself instead of pasting large diffs into the prompt.
- If the environment needs special Claude CLI flags, pass them via repeated
--claude-arg values from the subagent command.
Follow-up review
After you make changes, tell the subagent to run:
SKILL_DIR=/absolute/path/to/this/installed/claude-review/skill
python3 "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/claude_review.py" resume \
--repo-root <repo-root> \
--session-id <session-id> \
--scope-context '<same scope sentence used for the initial review>' \
[--summary '<what changed since the last round>'] \
[--user-request '<original request>']
The --summary should be short and factual. Keep --scope-context stable across rounds so Claude keeps reviewing the same target.
Step 3: Implement or reject feedback deliberately
Read Claude's feedback and decide what is actually valid.
- Implement changes that fix real correctness, regression, edge-case, or test gaps.
- Skip suggestions that conflict with project conventions or the user's stated goal.
- If you skip a suggestion, keep a short reason so you can explain the disagreement later.
You are still responsible for judgment. Treat Claude as a reviewer, not the decision-maker.
Step 4: Re-review in the same Claude session
Reuse the SESSION_ID from the first Claude response. The point of the persistent session is to let Claude remember prior findings and focus on what remains.
If claude --resume fails, start a fresh initial review and include a short summary of:
- what Claude previously flagged
- what you changed
- what you intentionally did not change
Step 5: Stop when the review converges
Aim for 2 to 3 rounds.
Stop when one of these is true:
- Claude says the review is clean.
- The remaining disagreement is stylistic or preference-based and you have a clear reason to stop.
- The loop is repeating without producing new actionable issues.
When you finish, report:
- what Claude flagged
- what you changed
- what you intentionally skipped
- whether Claude signed off or where the disagreement remained
Troubleshooting
- If there are no changes to review, ask the user what scope they want reviewed.
- If Claude tries to leave the requested scope, rerun with a tighter
--user-request or --extra-instruction.
- If you want to validate the wrapper without invoking Claude, run the script with
--dry-run.
