Coordinates parallel code reviews across dimensions like security, performance, architecture, testing, and accessibility with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reports.
From agent-teamsnpx claudepluginhub jadecli/jadecli-claude-plugins --plugin agent-teamsThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
references/review-dimensions.mdSearches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Guides slash command development for Claude Code: structure, YAML frontmatter, dynamic arguments, bash execution, user interactions, organization, and best practices.
Patterns for coordinating parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions, deduplicating findings, calibrating severity, and producing consolidated reports.
| Dimension | Focus | When to Include |
|---|---|---|
| Security | Vulnerabilities, auth, input validation | Always for code handling user input or auth |
| Performance | Query efficiency, memory, caching | When changing data access or hot paths |
| Architecture | SOLID, coupling, patterns | For structural changes or new modules |
| Testing | Coverage, quality, edge cases | When adding new functionality |
| Accessibility | WCAG, ARIA, keyboard nav | For UI/frontend changes |
| Scenario | Dimensions |
|---|---|
| API endpoint changes | Security, Performance, Architecture |
| Frontend component | Architecture, Testing, Accessibility |
| Database migration | Performance, Architecture |
| Authentication changes | Security, Testing |
| Full feature review | Security, Performance, Architecture, Testing |
When multiple reviewers report issues at the same location:
For each finding in all reviewer reports:
1. Check if another finding references the same file:line
2. If yes, check if they describe the same issue
3. If same issue: merge, keeping the more detailed description
4. If different issue: keep both, tag as "co-located"
5. Use highest severity among merged findings
| Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Data loss, security breach, complete failure | Certain or very likely | SQL injection, auth bypass, data corruption |
| High | Significant functionality impact, degradation | Likely | Memory leak, missing validation, broken flow |
| Medium | Partial impact, workaround exists | Possible | N+1 query, missing edge case, unclear error |
| Low | Minimal impact, cosmetic | Unlikely | Style issue, minor optimization, naming |
## Code Review Report
**Target**: {files/PR/directory}
**Reviewers**: {dimension-1}, {dimension-2}, {dimension-3}
**Date**: {date}
**Files Reviewed**: {count}
### Critical Findings ({count})
#### [CR-001] {Title}
**Location**: `{file}:{line}`
**Dimension**: {Security/Performance/etc.}
**Description**: {what was found}
**Impact**: {what could happen}
**Fix**: {recommended remediation}
### High Findings ({count})
...
### Medium Findings ({count})
...
### Low Findings ({count})
...
### Summary
| Dimension | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Total |
| ------------ | -------- | ----- | ------ | ----- | ------ |
| Security | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Performance | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 |
| Architecture | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| **Total** | **1** | **3** | **9** | **5** | **18** |
### Recommendation
{Overall assessment and prioritized action items}