| name | review-gang |
| description | Review an existing diff, branch, pull request, or codebase with at least two independent reviewer subagents, scale the reviewer set to the risk, then synthesize their evidence into a ship decision. Use when the user asks to review this PR, check this diff independently, decide whether someone else's change is safe to merge, triage PR risk, or follow up after runtime proof. Produces a `ship it` / `needs review` / `blocked` verdict. Do not use to self-check a change you just authored. |
Review Gang
Independently audit existing code by spawning concern-specific reviewer subagents, then synthesize one evidence-backed ship decision.
Contract
- Spawn at least two reviewer personas as separate subagents every time
- Treat invocation of
review-gang, $review-gang, or the Review Gang tile as authorization to use reviewer subagents; if their tooling is not visible, discover or load it once, then report blocked if it remains unavailable unless the user explicitly allows a sequential fallback
- Scale the reviewer set to the change: a tiny low-risk diff gets
general plus one relevant specialist; normal changes get general, tests, silent-failures, and code-shape; high-risk changes add only distinct specialists
- Keep findings risk-focused, evidence-backed, severity-ordered, and free of low-value nits
- Block when missing context or proof prevents an honest verdict; otherwise name the unverified surface and adjust the verdict
- Do not use this lane to self-check a change you just authored
Before You Start
- Define the scope: file, diff, branch, commit range, or PR
- Load the target repo's guidance files such as
AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or repo rules, when present
- Confirm the reviewed base/head or live artifact is current
- Select the risk tier and reviewer set from references/reviewer-selection.md
- Load each selected persona file relative to this
SKILL.md, then spawn the reviewer with those instructions embedded in its task
Add conditional personas only when they add a distinct concern; use references/reviewer-selection.md for shortcuts and criteria.
Workflow
1. Scope nearby risk
Review the requested code, but inspect adjacent behavior when the risk leaks past the named diff.
Refresh the source of truth before judging branches or PRs: base branch, head SHA, diff, checks, and linked issue or specification when present.
2. Spawn reviewer subagents
Spawn one subagent per selected persona. Run them in parallel when the environment supports it, and keep each persona concern-focused and independent. Do not collapse the gang into one blended self-review pass.
Before spawning, load references/reviewers/<persona>.md relative to this skill package and embed its contents in the task. Never ask the subagent to resolve a source-repo path from the target repository.
Use this prompt shape for each subagent, filling in the persona, scope, and loaded instructions:
You are the <persona> reviewer. Read the target repo guidance, then review only <scope>.
Persona instructions:
<contents loaded from references/reviewers/<persona>.md>
Return only material findings with file/line evidence, severity, confidence, and the proof or missing proof that changes the verdict. If you find nothing material, say "none" and name any residual unverified surface.
Concrete starting points:
git diff --stat <base>...HEAD to size the changegit diff <base>...HEAD -- <path> to inspect risky files- targeted tests such as
pnpm test path/to/spec when behavior claims need proof
3. Collect evidence
- Cite exact file references for static findings
- Run the smallest runtime check that changes the verdict when the repo supports it
- If something is unverified, say so explicitly
- Treat stale CI, stale review artifacts, or moved branch heads as unverified until refreshed
- If legacy or dead code is still present, say whether it should be deleted or why it must stay
- If tests mock the main integrations or boundaries, say that the behavior is still unverified on the real surface
4. Synthesize the verdict
Order findings by severity. If no findings are discovered, say that explicitly and mention any residual risk or testing gap. Choose exactly one verdict: ship it, needs review, or blocked.
Output
After review, report in this compact bullet shape:
- findings: first, only when present; otherwise - findings: none- verdict: exactly one of ship it, needs review, or blocked- evidence: concise explanations of what checks proved, not full commands- unverified: residual risk, readiness gaps, or none- next: one of implementation, runtime verification, readiness setup, documentation cleanup, or none- notes: only for out-of-scope repo state the user must act on
Prefer the active harness's best native review representation instead of a prose-heavy wall of text.
Keep detailed issue text in native findings or fallback finding bullets. After findings, keep the remaining labels to four lines or fewer. Omit opener, closer, apology, status preface, and conversational recap.
See references/reviewing.md for stale evidence handling and presentation details.
Example:
- finding: high — src/auth/session.ts:42 fallback returns an anonymous session when token parsing fails
- verdict: needs review
- evidence: session tests exercised token parsing failures
- unverified: malformed OAuth callback runtime behavior
- next: implementation
References
