Skill

team-review

Spawns 3-6 parallel specialist subagents to review code diffs by content (language, security, architecture), consolidates findings in chat. No GitHub posts. Triggers on 'team review' phrases.

code-quality

git-workflow

npx claudepluginhub marcoskichel/empire --plugin empire-dev

Tool Access

This skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.

Preview

SKILL.md

Similar Skills

skill-lookup

161.9k

Searches, 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.

prompts.chat

karpathy-guidelines

123.4k

Guides code writing, review, and refactoring with Karpathy-inspired rules to avoid overcomplication, ensure simplicity, surgical changes, and verifiable success criteria.

andrej-karpathy-skills

ui-ux-pro-max

76.2k

Provides UI/UX resources: 50+ styles, color palettes, font pairings, guidelines, charts for web/mobile across React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Tailwind, React Native, Flutter. Aids planning, building, reviewing interfaces.

ui-ux-pro-max

Stats

Parent Repo Stars8

Parent Repo Forks0

Last CommitMay 5, 2026

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

Help us improve

Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.

Trigger phrases split into two classes:
- Strong: "team review", "specialist review", "have specialists", "ask the team", "parallel review", "have the team look", "/empire-dev:team-review", "re-review", "another pass"
- Weak: "review my changes", "review again", "look at this"
If user used a Strong phrase → proceed without confirmation
If user used only a Weak phrase → MUST confirm before dispatch:
- "Run a parallel team review (3–6 specialists), or a single-pass review?"
- Default to single-pass on ambiguity; dispatch a team review only when user explicitly opts in or repo CLAUDE.md mandates it for non-trivial diffs
MUST NOT silently dispatch a multi-agent review on weak phrasing alone

Infer target from conversation context first
Signals to read:
- Files just edited this session
- Recent tool calls touching specific paths
- Explicit user mention ("the auth changes", "this PR", "uncommitted work")
- Last commit topic if user references it
- Current task scope from todos or plan
No default fallback chain
If conversation gives clear scope → use it (specific files, commits, branch range)
If signals conflict or ambiguous → ASK user; offer concrete options:
- Option A: files X, Y just edited
- Option B: open PR #N
- Option C: uncommitted diff
- Option D: branch vs base
MUST state inferred target + evidence before dispatch
MUST confirm with user when not certain

NEVER run gh pr review, gh pr comment, gh pr edit
NEVER post inline PR comments
NEVER write findings to GitHub in any form
All reports stay local in chat only

Inspect diff; pick 3–6 specialists matching change content
Agent names vary by environment; do not assume a specific agent exists
Inspect available subagents via the Agent tool's subagent_type parameter
For each signal present in the diff, pick the available agent whose name/description best matches; if multiple candidates fit, prefer the most specific; if none fit, fall back to the most general code-reviewer-style agent available
Signals to detect in the diff:
- Language/framework — dominant language or framework of changed files
- Security surface — auth, crypto, secrets, permissions, input handling
- Architectural change — new module or package boundaries, dependency shifts, interface redesigns
- Test changes — test files added or modified
- Performance hotspot — hot paths, DB queries, batching, caching, resource allocation
- Debugging need — complex logic, non-obvious control flow, subtle state mutations
- Generalist coverage — always include at least one general code-reviewer agent to anchor the roster
MUST list chosen specialists with their actual subagent_type values + one-line rationale per pick BEFORE dispatch
If confident in every pick (clear signal-to-agent fit, no ambiguity) → dispatch immediately; user may interrupt mid-flight
If uncertain about any pick (multiple candidates equally fit, no clear-fit agent for a signal, ambiguous diff scope) → MUST confirm roster with user before dispatch; allow swaps, additions, removals

Send single message with multiple Agent tool calls (one per specialist)
Each specialist receives:
- Full diff or PR number
- List of changed files
- User's stated intent (if provided)
- Output format instruction (see below)
- "Do NOT post to GitHub. Report findings in chat only."

Required specialist output format:

## Must-fix
<file:line> — <concrete suggestion>

## Should-fix
<file:line> — <concrete suggestion>

## Nits
<file:line> — <concrete suggestion>

## Praise
<what was done well>

Cap each specialist response under 400 words

Trigger: user says "re-review", "review again", "another pass"
MUST use same roster as prior review; scroll back in conversation to find it
If prior roster cannot be located (long conversation, summarization, ambiguity) → MUST ask user to confirm the roster before dispatch; do NOT improvise a new roster silently
Pass each specialist:
- Their prior review findings
- User's responses or decisions since last review
- New diff (what changed since last review)
- Instruction: surface unresolved prior issues + new issues only
Same output format as initial review

After all specialists return, produce consolidated report

Summary table:

| Specialist | Must-fix | Should-fix | Nits |
|---|---|---|---|

Deduplicated ## Must-fix — merged across specialists, file:line, concrete fix
Deduplicated ## Should-fix
## Conflicts — where specialists disagree; state each side
## Recommended actions — prioritized list; include rationale per item

Present recommended actions; ask user which to apply
MUST wait for user reply before implementing anything
Implement only chosen fixes
One atomic commit per logical fix (follow repo git rules)

If zero suitable code-review/specialist agents exist in the environment → MUST stop and tell user; never inline-impersonate a specialist
MUST NOT fabricate specialist personas inside the main thread