Code Review

Code Review

Phase 1: Determine Review Scope

Initial request: $ARGUMENTS

Actions:

1. Create a todo list to track progress through all phases

2. Determine what code to review. The user may specify the scope explicitly; if not, infer from context or ask:

   User says	Scope
   "review my changes" / no specific scope	Unstaged changes (git diff)
   "review what I'm about to commit"	Staged changes (git diff --cached)
   "review this branch" / "compare to main"	Branch diff (git diff main...HEAD)
   "review these files" / specific paths	Only those files
   "review this PR" / PR number	Changes in the PR (git diff main...HEAD or the PR's base)

3. Run the appropriate git diff command to get the changeset. If the diff is empty, tell the user and ask them to clarify

Phase 2: Parallel Review

Capture the changeset (diff output or file contents) from Phase 1 as codeContent. Then read references/agent-prompts.md and launch the 3 code-reviewer agents in parallel, substituting <scope-description> and ${codeContent} in each prompt.

The three agents cover: simplicity/DRY, bugs/correctness, conventions/abstractions.

Phase 3: Consolidate & Report

Once all three agents have returned:

1. Deduplicate: If multiple agents flagged the same issue, merge them into one finding and note that multiple reviewers caught it (this increases its priority)
2. Classify severity:
   • Critical — Bugs, security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, or anything that will break in production
   • Important — Convention violations, missing tests, DRY issues, or patterns that will cause maintenance pain
   • Minor — Style nits, minor simplification opportunities (include only if the list is short)
3. Sort by severity (critical first), then by how many reviewers flagged it
4. Present the consolidated report using this format:

## Code Review Summary

Reviewed: <scope description>
Reviewers: simplicity/DRY, bugs/correctness, conventions/abstractions

### Critical (X issues)

**1. [Short title]** — `path/to/file.ts:42`
[Description of the issue]
Flagged by: bugs/correctness, conventions
Suggested fix: [concrete suggestion]

### Important (X issues)
...

### Minor (X issues)
...

### What looks good
[Brief note on things the reviewers found well-done — balanced feedback matters]

5. If no high-confidence issues were found across any dimension, confirm the code looks good with a brief summary of what was checked