Multi-Agent Code Review

Use TodoWrite to track these 4 phases:

1. Detect languages and scope
2. Spawn review agents (or team)
3. Collect agent results
4. Aggregate and present findings

---

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

• deep → 6-12 specialized Claude sub-agents (language-specific reviewers)
• team → Agent team mode: Reviewers challenge each other's findings
• external → Add external AI reviewers (Codex + Gemini). Only if explicitly requested.

IMPORTANT: Without external flag, run ONLY Claude agents. Never run Codex or Gemini unless external is in arguments.

Arguments	Claude Agents	Mode	External (Codex + Gemini)
(none)	go-engineer, python-engineer	Subagent	❌ No
deep	go-qa, go-idioms, go-tests, go-impl, go-docs, go-simplify (+ py-*)	Subagent	❌ No
team	go-engineer, python-engineer	Team	❌ No
deep team	All 6-12 specialized sub-agents	Team	❌ No
external	go-engineer, python-engineer	Subagent	✅ Yes
team external	go-engineer, python-engineer	Team	✅ Yes
deep team external	All 6-12 specialized sub-agents	Team	✅ Yes

---

Step 0: Check Historical Context (if claude-mem available)

If mcp__plugin_claude-mem_mcp-search__search is available, query for past findings on changed files:

search({ query: "<file paths from git diff --name-only HEAD>", limit: 10 })

Look for past review findings, gotchas (type: "gotcha"), and decisions on those files. If relevant observations exist, fetch details with get_observations and include key findings in agent prompts (Step 2).

Skip this step silently if claude-mem tools are not available.

---

Step 1: Detect Language & Ask Scope

Detect languages in changes:

git diff --name-only HEAD | grep -E '\.(go|py|ts|tsx|html|css|js)$' | head -20

Then use AskUserQuestion:

Header	Question	Options
Review scope	What code should I review?	1. Uncommitted changes - git diff HEAD 2. Branch vs master - git diff master...HEAD 3. Specific files - I'll provide paths

Build git command based on choice.

---

Step 2: Spawn Agents or Team (ALL in ONE message)

Team Mode vs Subagent Mode

If team in $ARGUMENTS: Use agent team for collaborative review with debate.

Team mode benefits:

• Reviewers challenge each other's findings
• Competing perspectives surface edge cases
• Faster for complex PRs (parallel independent work)

Subagent mode benefits:

• Simpler coordination
• Lower token cost
• Better for straightforward reviews

---

Default Mode: Language Engineers

For each detected language, spawn ONE Task:

• Go files → Task(subagent_type="go-engineer", ...)
• Python files → Task(subagent_type="python-engineer", ...)

Deep Mode: Specialized Sub-Agents

Invoke agents by their subagent_type (models defined in agent metadata):

Go agents (if Go files detected):

subagent_type	Focus
go-qa	Logic, security, performance
go-tests	Test coverage, quality
go-impl	Implementation concerns
go-idioms	Patterns, error handling
go-docs	Documentation, comments
go-simplify	Over-abstraction, dead code

Python agents (if Python files detected):

subagent_type	Focus
py-qa	Logic, security, performance
py-tests	Test coverage, quality
py-impl	Implementation concerns
py-idioms	Patterns, typing
py-docs	Docstrings, documentation
py-simplify	Over-abstraction, dead code

TypeScript agents (if TypeScript files detected):

subagent_type	Focus
ts-qa	Logic, security, performance
ts-tests	Test coverage, quality
ts-impl	Implementation concerns
ts-idioms	Patterns, strict typing
ts-docs	Documentation, comments
ts-simplify	Over-abstraction, dead code

Web agents (if HTML/CSS/JS files detected):

subagent_type	Focus
web-qa	Security, performance, a11y
web-tests	E2E/Playwright test quality
web-impl	Requirements, responsiveness
web-idioms	Semantic HTML, CSS, JS patterns
web-docs	Comments, ARIA labels
web-simplify	CSS bloat, unnecessary JS

If team NOT in $ARGUMENTS (Subagent mode):

Spawn each agent using its subagent_type directly:

Task(subagent_type="{agent}", prompt="Review code from: {git_command}. Output: file:line - Issue. Fix.")

Agent's own model setting (from metadata) is respected automatically.

If team in $ARGUMENTS (Team mode):

Create an agent team with specialized reviewers:

Create an agent team to review code from: {git_command}.

Spawn teammates for detected languages:

{If Go detected}:
- go-qa: Security, logic, OWASP Top 10
- go-idioms: Patterns, error handling, stdlib usage
- go-tests: Test coverage, quality, edge cases
- go-impl: Requirements match, DI, edge cases
- go-docs: Documentation quality
- go-simplify: Over-abstraction, dead code

{If Python detected}:
- py-qa: Security, logic, OWASP Top 10
- py-idioms: Pythonic patterns, type hints
- py-tests: pytest patterns, coverage
- py-impl: Requirements, DI wiring
- py-docs: Docstrings, type hints
- py-simplify: Over-abstraction, complexity

{If TypeScript detected}:
- ts-qa: Security, async safety, OWASP
- ts-idioms: Strict typing, patterns
- ts-tests: Test quality, coverage
- ts-impl: Requirements match
- ts-docs: Documentation
- ts-simplify: Over-engineering

{If Web detected}:
- web-qa: Security, performance, a11y
- web-idioms: Semantic HTML, CSS, JS patterns
- web-tests: E2E/Playwright quality
- web-impl: Requirements, responsiveness
- web-docs: Comments, ARIA labels
- web-simplify: CSS bloat, unnecessary JS

Have reviewers:
1. Review code independently
2. Challenge each other's findings
3. Flag disagreements for discussion
4. Converge on consensus issues

Report format: file:line - Issue. Fix. [Flagged by: agent1, agent2]

The team lead will coordinate reviewers and synthesize results.

External Mode: Add Codex + Gemini (ONLY if external in arguments)

Skip this section entirely if external is NOT in $ARGUMENTS.

If external IS present, spawn these agents IN PARALLEL with Claude agents:

Task(subagent_type="codex-assistant", prompt="review: Review code from {git_command}")
Task(subagent_type="gemini-consultant", prompt="review: Review architecture of {git_command}")

codex-assistant: Code review for security (OWASP), quality, architecture, testing gaps. gemini-consultant: Architecture alternatives and design trade-offs.

Remember: deep alone = Claude agents only. deep external = Claude + Codex + Gemini.

---

Step 3: Aggregate & Present

## Code Review Summary

**Mode**: {default|deep} {team} {+external}
**Scope**: {description}
**Agents**: {count} reviewers
**Coordination**: {Subagents | Agent Team}

---

### CRITICAL (Must Fix)

- [{source}] `file:line` - Issue. Fix.

### IMPORTANT (Should Fix)

- [{source}] `file:line` - Issue. Fix.

### SUGGESTIONS

- [{source}] `file:line` - Issue. Fix.

---

### Consensus (Multi-Agent Agreement)

| Issue | Flagged By | Confidence |
| ----- | ---------- | ---------- |
| ...   | ...        | High       |

### Recommended Actions

1. {prioritized list}

Writing Style

• Brevity: One sentence per finding. No preamble, no "I noticed that..."
• No AI-speak: Cut "potential", "might", "consider". State what IS wrong
• Direct: "This leaks memory" not "This could potentially lead to memory issues"
• Technical precision: Include type names, function signatures, line numbers

---

Examples

/reviewing-code                      # Subagents: go-engineer, python-engineer
/reviewing-code deep                 # Subagents: 6-12 specialized (NO external)
/reviewing-code team                 # Agent team: engineers challenge each other
/reviewing-code deep team            # Agent team: all 6-12 specialists with debate
/reviewing-code external             # Subagents: Claude + Codex + Gemini
/reviewing-code deep team external   # Agent team: all specialists + external reviewers

Execute this workflow now.