Provide a code review for the given pull request.

To do this, follow these steps precisely:

1. Launch a haiku agent to check if any of the following are true:

   • The pull request is closed
   • The pull request is a draft
   • The pull request does not need code review (e.g. automated PR, trivial change that is obviously correct)
   • Claude has already commented on this PR (check gh pr view <PR> --comments for comments left by claude)

   If any condition is true, stop and do not proceed.

Note: Still review Claude generated PR's.

2. Launch a haiku agent to return a list of file paths (not their contents) for all relevant CLAUDE.md files including:

   • The root CLAUDE.md file, if it exists
   • Any CLAUDE.md files in directories containing files modified by the pull request

3. Launch a sonnet agent to view the pull request and return a summary of the changes

4. Launch 4 agents in parallel to independently review the changes. Each agent should return the list of issues, where each issue includes a description and the reason it was flagged (e.g. "CLAUDE.md adherence", "bug"). The agents should do the following:

   Agents 1 + 2: CLAUDE.md compliance sonnet agents Audit changes for CLAUDE.md compliance in parallel. Note: When evaluating CLAUDE.md compliance for a file, you should only consider CLAUDE.md files that share a file path with the file or parents.

   Agent 3: Opus bug agent (parallel subagent with agent 4) Scan for obvious bugs. Focus only on the diff itself without reading extra context. Flag only significant bugs; ignore nitpicks and likely false positives. Do not flag issues that you cannot validate without looking at context outside of the git diff.

   Agent 4: Opus bug agent (parallel subagent with agent 3) Look for problems that exist in the introduced code. This could be security issues, incorrect logic, etc. Only look for issues that fall within the changed code.

   CRITICAL: We only want HIGH SIGNAL issues. This means:

   • Objective bugs that will cause incorrect behavior at runtime
   • Clear, unambiguous CLAUDE.md violations where you can quote the exact rule being broken

   We do NOT want:

   • Subjective concerns or "suggestions"
   • Style preferences not explicitly required by CLAUDE.md
   • Potential issues that "might" be problems
   • Anything requiring interpretation or judgment calls

   If you are not certain an issue is real, do not flag it. False positives erode trust and waste reviewer time.

   In addition to the above, each subagent should be told the PR title and description. This will help provide context regarding the author's intent.

5. For each issue found in the previous step by agents 3 and 4, launch parallel subagents to validate the issue. These subagents should get the PR title and description along with a description of the issue. The agent's job is to review the issue to validate that the stated issue is truly an issue with high confidence. For example, if an issue such as "variable is not defined" was flagged, the subagent's job would be to validate that is actually true in the code. Another example would be CLAUDE.md issues. The agent should validate that the CLAUDE.md rule that was violated is scoped for this file and is actually violated. Use Opus subagents for bugs and logic issues, and sonnet agents for CLAUDE.md violations.

6. Filter out any issues that were not validated in step 5. This step will give us our list of high signal issues for our review.

7. If issues were found, skip to step 8 to post inline comments directly.

   If NO issues were found, post a summary comment using gh pr comment (if --comment argument is provided): "No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance."

8. Post inline comments for each issue using mcp__github_inline_comment__create_inline_comment:

   • path: the file path

   • line (and startLine for ranges): select the buggy lines so the user sees them

   • body: Brief description of the issue (no "Bug:" prefix). For small fixes (up to 5 lines changed), include a committable suggestion:

     corrected code here
     

     Suggestions must be COMPLETE. If a fix requires additional changes elsewhere (e.g., renaming a variable requires updating all usages), do NOT use a suggestion block. The author should be able to click "Commit suggestion" and have a working fix - no followup work required.

     For larger fixes (6+ lines, structural changes, or changes spanning multiple locations), do NOT use suggestion blocks. Instead:

     1. Describe what the issue is
     2. Explain the suggested fix at a high level
     3. Include a copyable prompt for Claude Code that the user can use to fix the issue, formatted as:

        Fix [file:line]: [brief description of issue and suggested fix]
        

   IMPORTANT: Only post ONE comment per unique issue. Do not post duplicate comments.

Use this list when evaluating issues in Steps 4 and 5 (these are false positives, do NOT flag):

• Pre-existing issues
• Something that appears to be a bug but is actually correct
• Pedantic nitpicks that a senior engineer would not flag
• Issues that a linter will catch (do not run the linter to verify)
• General code quality concerns (e.g., lack of test coverage, general security issues) unless explicitly required in CLAUDE.md
• Issues mentioned in CLAUDE.md but explicitly silenced in the code (e.g., via a lint ignore comment)

Notes:

• Use gh CLI to interact with GitHub (e.g., fetch pull requests, create comments). Do not use web fetch.
• Create a todo list before starting.
• You must cite and link each issue in inline comments (e.g., if referring to a CLAUDE.md, include a link to it).
• If no issues are found, post a comment with the following format:

Code review

No issues found. Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance.

• When linking to code in inline comments, follow the following format precisely, otherwise the Markdown preview won't render correctly: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/blob/c21d3c10bc8e898b7ac1a2d745bdc9bc4e423afe/package.json#L10-L15
  • Requires full git sha
  • You must provide the full sha. Commands like https://github.com/owner/repo/blob/$(git rev-parse HEAD)/foo/bar will not work, since your comment will be directly rendered in Markdown.
  • Repo name must match the repo you're code reviewing

  • sign after the file name

  • Line range format is L[start]-L[end]
  • Provide at least 1 line of context before and after, centered on the line you are commenting about (eg. if you are commenting about lines 5-6, you should link to L4-7)