Review Scope Selection (no arguments)

Invoke scripts via ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/<name>. That env var is set by Claude Code for every plugin context and gives the absolute path to the marketplace clone — no PATH or cwd assumptions. Bare-command invocation (e.g. claude-review.sh) is NOT reliable: the plugin never puts its scripts on PATH, so bare calls exit 127.

Respond in the user's preferred language (detect from their recent messages, or fall back to the language setting in CLAUDE.md).

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

• No arguments: review uncommitted changes (default)
• --base <branch>: full branch diff against a base
• --commits: review only the most recent commit
• --files "a.cs b.cs": explicit file list

Review Scope Selection (no arguments)

Default: uncommitted changes. Run git diff --name-only HEAD -- '*.cs' to get the list of changed files. This is the most common case — code has been written but not yet committed.

Override order:

1. User specified a scope (e.g. "review Phase 8") → follow user intent
2. No uncommitted changes but branch has commits → git diff --name-only develop...HEAD -- '*.cs'
3. User says "review the whole branch" → --base develop

Pass the file list to the review script as --files.

Execution Flow

2–5. Automated Review Loop

Loop automatically — do not ask the user between rounds. Stop when any of the following is true:

• No [Critical] issues in the review result
• 5 rounds have been completed
• Two consecutive rounds with no new critical issues

Each round:

a. Send to Claude for Review

Before sending the diff to Claude, if qq-policy-check.sh is available, run it on the same changed .cs files first. Treat those deterministic findings as already-established local policy results. Claude should focus on bugs, behavior, architecture, and anything not trivially captured by deterministic checks.

Use the Bash tool with run_in_background: true to run in the background:

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/claude-review.sh $ARGUMENTS

The script calls claude -p, with results output to stdout and Docs/qq/<branch-name>/claude-code-review_<timestamp>.md. Claude CLI review typically takes 2-5 minutes. Using background execution, the system will automatically notify when the command completes — no need to sleep or poll. Notify the user that the background task has been submitted and will continue processing automatically when complete.

From round 2 onward: If the previous round had findings deemed over-engineered, append --prompt to the original arguments:

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/bin/claude-review.sh $ARGUMENTS --prompt "Review these code changes using the same criteria as round 1 (bugs, architecture, performance, security, style). Additional context: the following suggestions from the previous round were deemed over-engineered and replaced with simpler solutions: <list items and rationale>. Do not re-suggest more complex approaches unless the simpler version introduces a real defect. Classify by severity: [Critical] [Moderate] [Suggestion]."

b. Summarize Review Results

After the subagent returns, categorize findings by severity:

• Critical issues: Bugs, architectural violations, anti-patterns that must be fixed
• Moderate issues: Worth improving but not blocking
• Suggestions: Nice-to-have optimizations

Present the summary to the user. Do not fix code yet — proceed to the verification step first.

c. Independent Verification (required, parallel subagents, gate-enforced)

Review Gate: After the review script runs, a PreToolUse hook blocks Edit/Write on .cs and Docs/*.md files until at least 1 verification subagent completes. This is a mechanical constraint — you cannot edit code until findings are verified.

For each critical and moderate issue, dispatch a subagent to verify it in depth — do not draw conclusions from a quick scan in the main session.

Verify against runtime state, not just source. When a finding is about current behavior (wrong values, missed call sites, broken state), the verifying subagent should query the live Unity Editor with tykit (unity_query / unity_object / get-field / call-method / console) — not just read source. See shared/tykit-first.md for the rule, shared/tykit-reference.md for commands.

How to execute: Group all findings that need verification, and for each one (or a cluster of related ones) dispatch a subagent using the Agent tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", model: "opus"), running in parallel. Each subagent's prompt must include the original finding (verbatim), relevant file paths, and the instructions from ../../shared/verification-prompt.md.

After dispatching all verification subagents, write the expected count to the gate file so the gate knows when all verifications are complete:

source "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/platform/detect.sh"
IFS=: read -r ts count _ < "$QQ_TEMP_DIR/review-gate-$PPID"
echo "${ts}:${count}:N" > "$QQ_TEMP_DIR/review-gate-$PPID"

(Replace N with the actual number of verification subagents dispatched.)

Aggregate: After all subagents return, consolidate the results and present each finding's verdict and supporting evidence to the user.

d. Fix the Code

• For each confirmed critical issue, locate and fix the code
• For findings flagged as Confirmed but over-engineered, apply a simpler alternative fix
• For confirmed moderate issues, apply fixes at your discretion
• After each fix, run a build and tests to verify
• After all fixes, present a summary of changes to the user

Handling test failures: If build/test runs reveal pre-existing failures unrelated to this change, ask the user how to proceed:

1. Investigate and fix — dig into these failures and attempt to fix them
2. Skip and continue — log the failures and continue the current review cycle Do not unilaterally decide "unrelated, skip it" — let the user decide.

e. Decide Whether to Continue

• If this round had [Critical] issues confirmed and fixed → automatically start the next round (back to a)
• If this round had no [Critical] issues → output "Review passed" and end the loop
• If 5 rounds are complete → output final status and end the loop
• If two consecutive rounds had no new critical issues → suggest ending the loop

Print === Round N/5 === at the start of each round.

6. Clean Up Gate

After the review loop ends (for any reason), clean up the gate marker:

source "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/platform/detect.sh"
rm -f "$QQ_TEMP_DIR/review-gate-$PPID"

Handoff

After the review loop ends, recommend the next step:

• Review passed, no issues → "Code looks good. Want to run /qq:test to verify?"
• Issues were found and fixed → "Fixed N issues. Want to run /qq:test to make sure nothing broke?"
• 5 rounds exhausted with remaining issues → "Some issues remain after 5 rounds. Run /qq:test to check impact, or continue fixing manually?"

--auto mode: run qq-execute-checkpoint.py pipeline-advance --project . --completed-skill "/qq:claude-code-review" --next-skill "/qq:test", then invoke /qq:test --auto.

Notes

• The review script is at claude-review.sh and requires Claude CLI (claude) to be available
• Never blindly trust Claude review results — subagents may misread code or reference wrong line numbers. Every finding must go through the verification step
• Watch for over-engineering — always ask: "Is the proposed fix proportionate to the problem?"
• When fixing, only address the actual issues the review identified — do not opportunistically refactor surrounding code
• Output path for any generated artifacts uses Docs/qq/<branch-name>/ where branch name is obtained via git branch --show-current | tr '/' '_'