Review Team

/review-team — Multi-Perspective Code Review

Launch a parallel review team that examines code from multiple angles simultaneously. The team produces a unified report with findings sorted by severity.

Team Composition

Instructions

Step 1: Determine Scope

If the user provided $ARGUMENTS:

• Use that as the review scope (files, directories, or PR description)

If no arguments:

• Check git diff --name-only HEAD~1 for recently changed files
• If no changes, ask: "Which files or feature should I review?"

Step 2: Detect Language

Scan the files in scope for primary language:

• .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx → use typescript-reviewer
• .py → use python-reviewer
• .go → use go-reviewer
• Mixed or other → skip language-specific reviewer

Step 3: Launch Parallel Agents

Launch all applicable agents simultaneously using the Agent tool:

Agent({
  subagent_type: "code-reviewer",
  description: "Code quality review",
  prompt: "Review these files for code quality: [files]. Check: correctness, edge cases, error handling, naming, DRY, function size. Report findings by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW). Format: file:line — issue + fix suggestion."
})

Agent({
  subagent_type: "security-reviewer",
  description: "Security review",
  prompt: "Security review these files: [files]. Check: OWASP Top 10, hardcoded secrets, injection risks, auth/authz, input validation, error message leaks. Report findings by severity."
})

Agent({
  subagent_type: "[language]-reviewer",
  description: "[Language] idiom review",
  prompt: "Review these [language] files for idiomatic patterns: [files]. Check: type safety, error handling conventions, naming conventions, framework best practices. Report findings by severity."
})

All three agents MUST be launched in a single message (parallel execution).

Step 4: Unified Report

After all agents complete, produce a single unified report:

## Review Team Report

### Scope
[files reviewed]

### CRITICAL
[merged from all agents, deduplicated]

### HIGH
[merged findings]

### MEDIUM
[merged findings]

### LOW
[merged findings]

### Summary
- Code Quality: X findings (Y critical/high)
- Security: X findings (Y critical/high)
- Language Idioms: X findings
- **Verdict:** APPROVED / NEEDS FIXES (N critical/high issues)

Step 5: Actionable Output

If there are CRITICAL or HIGH findings:

• List specific fixes needed
• Offer to fix them: "Shall I fix the N critical/high issues?"