/review - Code Review Workflow

Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.

When to Use

• "Review this code"

• "Review my PR"

• "Check this before I merge"

• "Get feedback on implementation"

• Before merging significant changes

• Quality gates

Workflow Overview

┌──────────┐

         │  critic  │ ─┐

         │ (code)   │  │

         └──────────┘  │

                       │

         ┌──────────┐  │      ┌──────────────┐

         │plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │

         │ (plan)   │  │      │ (synthesis)  │

         └──────────┘  │      └──────────────┘

                       │

         ┌──────────┐  │

         │plan-reviewer│ ─┘

         │ (change) │

         └──────────┘

         Parallel                Sequential

         perspectives            synthesis

Agent Sequence

#

Agent

Focus

Execution

1

critic

Code quality, patterns, readability

Parallel

1

plan-reviewer

Architecture, plan adherence

Parallel

1

plan-reviewer

Change impact, risk assessment

Parallel

2

review-agent

Synthesize all reviews, final verdict

After 1

Review Perspectives

• critic: Is this good code? (Style, patterns, readability)

• plan-reviewer: Does this match the design? (Architecture, plan)

• plan-reviewer: Is this change safe? (Risk, impact, regressions)

• review-agent: Overall assessment and recommendations

Execution

Phase 1: Parallel Reviews

# Code quality review

Task(

  subagent_type="critic",

  prompt="""

  Review code quality: [SCOPE]

  Evaluate:

  - Code style and consistency

  - Design patterns used

  - Readability and maintainability

  - Error handling

  - Test coverage

  Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)

  """,

  run_in_background=true

)

# Architecture review

Task(

  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",

  prompt="""

  Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]

  Check:

  - Follows established patterns

  - Matches implementation plan (if exists)

  - Consistent with system design

  - No architectural violations

  Output: Alignment assessment with concerns

  """,

  run_in_background=true

)

# Change impact review

Task(

  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",

  prompt="""

  Review change impact: [SCOPE]

  Assess:

  - Risk level of changes

  - Affected systems/components

  - Backward compatibility

  - Potential regressions

  - Security implications

  Output: Risk assessment with recommendations

  """,

  run_in_background=true

)

# Wait for all parallel reviews

[Check TaskOutput for all three]

Phase 2: Synthesis

Task(

  subagent_type="review-agent",

  prompt="""

  Synthesize reviews for: [SCOPE]

  Reviews:

  - critic: [code quality findings]

  - plan-reviewer: [architecture findings]

  - plan-reviewer: [change impact findings]

  Create final review:

  - Overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION)

  - Prioritized action items

  - Blocking vs non-blocking issues

  - Summary for PR description

  """

)

Review Modes

Full Review

User: /review

→ All four agents, comprehensive review

Quick Review

User: /review --quick

→ critic only, fast feedback

Security Focus

User: /review --security

→ Add aegis (security agent) to parallel phase

PR Review

User: /review PR #123

→ Fetch PR diff, review changes

Example

User: /review the authentication changes

Claude: Starting /review workflow...

Phase 1: Running parallel reviews...

┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ critic: Reviewing code quality...          │

│ plan-reviewer: Checking architecture...         │

│ plan-reviewer: Assessing change impact...         │

└────────────────────────────────────────────┘

critic: Found 2 issues

- [minor] Inconsistent error messages in auth.ts

- [major] Missing input validation in login()

plan-reviewer: ✅ Matches authentication plan

plan-reviewer: Medium risk

- Affects: login, signup, password reset

- Breaking change: session token format

Phase 2: Synthesizing...

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ Review Summary                              │

├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤

│ Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES                    │

│                                             │

│ Blocking:                                   │

│ 1. Add input validation to login()          │

│                                             │

│ Non-blocking:                               │

│ 2. Standardize error messages               │

│                                             │

│ Notes:                                      │

│ - Document session token format change      │

│ - Consider migration path for existing      │

│   sessions                                  │

└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Verdicts

• APPROVE: Ready to merge, all issues are minor

• REQUEST_CHANGES: Blocking issues must be fixed

• NEEDS_DISCUSSION: Architectural decisions need input