hierarchical

Hierarchical Project Review

Context

• Project root: !pwd
• Directory structure: !find . -type f -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.java" -o -name "*.swift" 2>/dev/null | head -50
• Tech stack: !([ -f package.json ] && echo "Node.js") || ([ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "Rust") || ([ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "Python") || ([ -f go.mod ] && echo "Go") || ([ -f pom.xml ] && echo "Java") || ([ -f Package.swift ] && echo "Swift") || echo "Unknown"
• Test commands available: !([ -f package.json ] && echo "npm/pnpm/yarn test") || ([ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "cargo test") || ([ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "pytest/uv run pytest") || ([ -f go.mod ] && echo "go test") || echo "no standard test framework detected"
• Total files: !find . -type f \( -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.jsx" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.java" -o -name "*.swift" \) 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' '

Phase 1: Determine Review Scope

Goal: Identify the project directory to review.

Actions:

1. Check review scope in this order:
   • User argument: If $ARGUMENTS specifies a directory, review that directory recursively
   • Current directory: If no argument, review the current project root (.)
2. Confirm scope with user if the project is large (>100 files) to potentially limit scope.

Phase 2: Technical Leadership Assessment

Goal: Map project architecture, identify risk areas, and determine review focus.

Actions:

1. Explore codebase structure using the Explore agent:
   • Launch subagent_type="Explore" with thoroughness: "very thorough"
   • Let the agent autonomously discover architecture, modules, and patterns
2. Perform a comprehensive leadership assessment with @tech-lead-reviewer:
   • Analyze overall architecture and module structure
   • Identify architectural patterns and violations
   • Map dependency graph and coupling points
   • Assess technical debt accumulation
   • Evaluate scalability and maintainability
3. Determine which specialized agents are required based on risk assessment.
4. Identify high-priority areas that need focused review.

Phase 3: Parallel Specialized Reviews

Goal: Collect comprehensive feedback from all relevant specialized reviewers.

Actions:

1. Launch required specialized reviews in parallel via the Task tool:
   • @code-reviewer — code quality, patterns, testing across modules
   • @security-reviewer — security audit across entire codebase
   • @performance-reviewer — performance bottlenecks, algorithm complexity, resource usage
   • @test-coverage-reviewer — test coverage, edge cases, test quality
   • @ux-reviewer — UI/UX review for user-facing components (skip if CLI/backend only)
2. Each agent reviews within the determined scope (entire project or specified directory).
3. Collect outcomes from each agent.
4. Resolve conflicting feedback between reviewers.

Phase 4: Consolidated Analysis & Reporting

Goal: Merge findings and produce prioritized actionable improvements.

Actions:

1. Merge findings and prioritize by impact/confidence:
   • Priority: Critical → High → Medium → Low
   • Confidence: High → Medium → Low
2. Present a consolidated report with:
   • Executive summary of project health
   • Critical issues requiring immediate attention
   • Technical debt inventory
   • Strategic recommendations with effort estimates
3. Ask whether the user wants fixes implemented.
4. If confirmed:
   • Address security, quality, or UX issues as requested.
   • Run tests and validations.
   • Engage @code-simplifier — code simplification and optimization — to refactor implemented fixes.
5. Ensure commits follow Git conventions (see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/references/git-commit-conventions.md).
6. Report outcomes and confirm review completion.

IMPORTANT: You MUST use the Task tool to complete ALL tasks.