code-review

Code Review Skill

Orchestrate a thorough code review by spawning 5 parallel specialist reviewers, each deeply focused on one dimension, then synthesise their findings into a coherent, prioritised review.

---

Step 1: Understand Scope and Context

Before spawning reviewers, establish:

• What to review — files, directory, PR diff, or pasted code
• Language and framework — infer from context; confirm if ambiguous
• Purpose of the code — what is it trying to do?
• Review depth — quick pass vs. deep dive? (default: thorough)

If the user just pastes code or says "review this", infer context and proceed immediately. Only ask if something critical is missing.

Read the code first. Use Read to read files and Glob to scan directory structure before spawning agents. Enough context is needed to give agents useful starting information and file paths.

---

Step 2: Spawn Parallel Reviewer Agents

Create a temp working directory:

/tmp/code-review-{timestamp}/

Before spawning agents, resolve ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} to its absolute path (it's available in your environment) and substitute it into the agent prompts below. Subagents don't have access to this variable.

Spawn all 5 agents simultaneously (in parallel, not sequentially). Each agent:

• Reads the same code (provide paths or content)
• Focuses on exactly one dimension
• Writes findings to its own JSON file in the working directory

Agents to spawn (see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/ for full instructions for each):

Agent file	Output file	Focus
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/design-reviewer.md	design.json	Architecture, separation of concerns, coupling, layering
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/quality-reviewer.md	quality.json	Clean code, naming, DRY, refactoring opportunities
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/smells-reviewer.md	smells.json	Code smells, hacks, workarounds, anti-patterns
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/security-reviewer.md	security.json	Vulnerabilities, input validation, auth, secrets, exposure
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/maintainability-reviewer.md	maintainability.json	Testability, error handling, dead code, documentation

Prompt to give each agent (replace all bracketed values and ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} with absolute paths before sending):

Read your reviewer instructions from [/absolute/path/to/agents/agent-file.md].

Also consult [/absolute/path/to/skills/code-review/references/language-notes.md]
for the relevant [language/framework] section — it contains idiomatic patterns,
common pitfalls, and framework conventions to check.

Then review the following code:
- Code location: [path(s) to files]
- Language/framework: [detected]
- Purpose: [brief description of what the code does]
- Output path: /tmp/code-review-{timestamp}/[output-file]

Focus only on your assigned dimension. Be thorough within your domain.

---

Step 3: Wait and Collect Results

Once all agents complete, read all 5 JSON files from the working directory. Each contains an array of findings in a standard format (see agent files for schema).

---

Step 4: Synthesise Findings

Before writing the review, process the collected findings:

Deduplicate: Multiple agents may flag the same issue from different angles (e.g., a god class flagged by both design and smells agents). Merge these into a single finding — don't list the same issue twice.

Calibrate severity: Review the severity each agent assigned and apply engineering judgment. If 3+ agents flag the same root cause, that's a strong signal it's major or critical.

Find cross-cutting themes: Look for a single root cause that explains multiple findings across different agents. Surface it as a design observation rather than listing all its symptoms separately.

Assess the overall picture: Is this code fundamentally healthy with some rough edges? Or is there a deeper structural problem?

---

Step 5a: Write the Triage Output

Output three blocks — no individual finding detail yet:

Summary

2–4 sentences on the overall state of the code. Be honest and direct. Praise what's genuinely good.

Findings

A compact numbered table — one row per finding, no detail:

#	Sev	Finding	Location
1	🔴	[title]	[file:line]
2	🟠	[title]	[file:line]
…	…	…	…

Severity key: 🔴 Critical · 🟠 Major · 🟡 Minor · 💡 Suggestion

Order rows by severity (critical first). Number sequentially starting at 1.

🔵 Design Observations

Higher-level architectural concerns that span multiple findings — the "core issue" narrative.

✅ What's Working Well

2–4 things done well. Anchors the review and tells the author what to preserve.

---

Step 5b: Gate on User Selection

After outputting the triage, use AskUserQuestion to ask:

"Which findings do you want to expand? Enter numbers (e.g. 1,3), a range (1-4), all, or fix 2,5 to implement directly. Or just ask about any finding."

---

Step 5c: Expand and Fix Loop

Parse the user's response from Step 5b:

Input pattern	Action
1,3,5	Expand findings 1, 3, 5 with full detail
1-4	Expand findings 1 through 4
all	Expand all findings
fix 2,5	Expand + implement findings 2 and 5
fix all	Expand + implement all findings
Natural language (e.g. "tell me more about the SQL issue")	Map to the closest matching finding by title/topic; if no confident match, ask the user to clarify which finding they mean

Expanding a finding means writing the full detail block:

**[emoji] Title** (`path/to/file.py`, line X–Y)

What the problem is and why it matters — the actual consequence or risk.

*Suggestion:* What to do instead, with a brief code snippet if it genuinely helps.

Use the severity guide from Step 5a.

Implementing a finding (fix N): after expanding, make the code change immediately. Summarise what was changed in 1–2 sentences.

After expanding/fixing, use AskUserQuestion to ask:

"Anything else to address? Pick more numbers, ask about a finding, or say 'done'."

If the user pushes back on a finding ("I disagree with #3"), engage with their reasoning directly — they may have context that changes the assessment. This is a conversation, not a report.

Exit the loop when the user says "done" or when their response cannot be interpreted as a finding selection, fix request, or pushback on a finding.

---

Tone and Style

• Write like a respected senior colleague, not a linter
• Explain the why behind every non-trivial finding
• Avoid piling on for the same root issue — note the pattern once
• Adapt depth to context: a 20-line utility vs. a 500-line module warrant different depth

---

Step 6: Cleanup

Remove the temp working directory once the review is delivered:

rm -rf /tmp/code-review-{timestamp}/

---

Fallback: No Sub-Agents Available

If running in an environment without sub-agent support (e.g., claude.ai web), review the code by working through each dimension in sequence using the agent files as checklists, and consult ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-review/references/language-notes.md for language-specific guidance. The output format is identical.

---

Additional Resources

• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/ — Full reviewer instructions and JSON output schema for each specialist dimension
• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-review/references/language-notes.md — Language-specific idioms, common pitfalls, and framework conventions (Python, Django, JS/TS, React, Node, Go, Java/Kotlin, SQL)