/review

Run a comprehensive code review. First detect the codebase type, then launch appropriate agents.

Step 1: Detect Typed Language

Before launching agents, check if this is a typed language codebase:

TypeScript/JavaScript with types:

• tsconfig.json exists, OR
• .ts/.tsx files in scope

Python with type hints:

• py.typed marker exists, OR
• mypy or pyright in pyproject.toml/setup.cfg, OR
• Type annotations visible in .py files (: str, -> None, Optional[, List[, etc.)

Statically typed languages (always typed):

• Java (.java), Kotlin (.kt), Go (.go), Rust (.rs), C# (.cs), Swift (.swift), Scala (.scala)

Quick detection commands:

# TypeScript
ls tsconfig.json 2>/dev/null || git ls-files '*.ts' '*.tsx' | head -1

# Python types
ls py.typed 2>/dev/null || grep -l "mypy\|pyright" pyproject.toml setup.cfg 2>/dev/null | head -1

# Other typed languages
git ls-files '*.java' '*.kt' '*.go' '*.rs' '*.cs' '*.swift' '*.scala' | head -1

Step 2: Launch Agents

Always launch these 5 core agents IN PARALLEL:

1. code-bugs-reviewer - Audit for logical bugs, race conditions, edge cases
2. code-coverage-reviewer - Verify test coverage for code changes
3. code-maintainability-reviewer - Check for DRY violations, dead code, complexity
4. claude-md-adherence-reviewer - Verify compliance with CLAUDE.md project standards
5. docs-reviewer - Audit documentation and code comments accuracy

Conditionally launch (only if typed language detected):

6. type-safety-reviewer - Audit type safety, any/unknown abuse, invalid states
   • Primary: TypeScript, Python with type hints (agent is optimized for these)
   • Also useful for: Java, Kotlin, Go, Rust, C#, Swift, Scala (core principles apply)
   • Skip for: Plain JavaScript, Ruby, PHP, shell scripts, untyped Python

Scope: $ARGUMENTS

If no arguments provided, all agents should analyze the git diff between the current branch and main/master branch.

Step 3: Verification Agent (Final Pass)

After all review agents complete, launch an opus verification agent to reconcile and validate findings:

Purpose: The review agents run in parallel and are unaware of each other's findings. This can lead to:

• Conflicting recommendations (one agent suggests X, another suggests opposite)
• Duplicate findings reported by multiple agents
• Low-confidence or vague issues that aren't actionable
• False positives that would waste time fixing

Verification Agent Task:

Use the Task tool with model: opus to launch a verification agent with this prompt:

You are a Review Reconciliation Expert. Analyze the combined findings from all review agents and produce a final, consolidated report.

## Input
[Include all agent reports here]

## Your Tasks

1. **Identify Conflicts**: Find recommendations that contradict each other across agents. Resolve by:
   - Analyzing which recommendation is more appropriate given the context
   - Noting when both perspectives have merit (flag for user decision)
   - Removing the weaker recommendation if clearly inferior

2. **Remove Duplicates**: Multiple agents may flag the same underlying issue. Consolidate into single entries, keeping the most detailed/actionable version.

3. **Filter Low-Confidence Issues**: Remove or downgrade issues that:
   - Are vague or non-actionable ("could be improved" without specifics)
   - Rely on speculation rather than evidence
   - Would require significant effort for minimal benefit
   - Are stylistic preferences not backed by project standards

4. **Validate Severity**: Ensure severity ratings are consistent and justified:
   - Critical: Will cause production failures or data loss
   - High: Significant bugs or violations that should block release
   - Medium: Real issues worth fixing but not blocking
   - Low: Nice-to-have improvements

5. **Flag Uncertain Items**: For issues where you're uncertain, mark them as "Needs Human Review" rather than removing them.

## Output

Produce a **Final Consolidated Review Report** with:
- Executive summary (overall code health assessment)
- Issues by severity (Critical → Low), deduplicated and validated
- Conflicts resolved (note any that need user decision)
- Items removed with brief reasoning (transparency)
- Recommended fix order (dependencies, quick wins first)

Step 4: Follow-up Action

After presenting the final consolidated report, ask the user what they'd like to address:

header: "Next Steps"
question: "Would you like to address any of these findings?"
options:
  - "Critical/High only (Recommended)" - Focus on issues that should block release
  - "All issues" - Address everything including medium and low severity
  - "Skip" - No fixes needed right now

Based on selection:

• Critical/High only: Use Skill tool: Skill("vibe-workflow:fix-review-issues", "--severity critical,high")
• All issues: Use Skill tool: Skill("vibe-workflow:fix-review-issues")
• Skip: End workflow

Execution

1. Run detection commands first (can be parallel)
2. Based on results, launch either 5 or 6 agents simultaneously in a single message
3. Do NOT run agents sequentially—always parallel
4. After all agents complete, launch the verification agent with all findings
5. Present the final consolidated report to the user
6. Ask user about next steps using AskUserQuestion
7. If user chooses to fix, invoke /fix-review-issues with appropriate scope