Mai Review

Mai Review — File-Level Code Review

Review findings go on the files, not in a ticket body. The fix agent runs mai context <file> and sees exactly what needs fixing — no cross-referencing.

Opening a review

Coordinator creates the review ticket

mai ticket "Review: auth hardening" -p 1 -l review \
  --target src/auth.ts --target src/http.ts \
  -d "Review the auth changes. 6-pass review."
# → tre-5c4a

Then delegates to a review agent:

teams delegate [{
  "text": "Review tre-5c4a. Use mai-review skill. Read mai show tre-5c4a, then check mai context on each target file. Leave findings with --file, include AC and REJECT.",
  "assignee": "reviewer",
  "template": "review"
}]

Reviewing

1. Check existing context

mai show tre-5c4a             # read the review ticket
mai context src/auth.ts       # see existing notes
mai context src/http.ts
mai search "auth" -k decision # find prior decisions about this area

2. Leave findings on each file

Every finding has three parts:

• What's wrong — the problem
• AC — what "fixed" looks like (acceptance criteria)
• REJECT — what NOT to do (rejection criteria)

Long findings — use the pipe pattern. Write to /tmp first, then pipe in. Never burn tokens rewriting a finding that failed. (See mai-agent skill for full pattern.)

mai add-note tre-5c4a --file src/auth.ts \
  "Race condition in token refresh.

AC:
- Mutex or single-flight around token refresh
- Concurrent requests block on in-flight refresh
- No request gets a revoked token

REJECT:
- Simple boolean flag instead of proper synchronization
- Retry loop without backoff
- Silencing the error"

mai add-note tre-5c4a --file src/http.ts \
  "Missing backoff on retry.

AC:
- Exponential backoff with jitter
- Max retry count configurable

REJECT:
- Fixed delay between retries
- No jitter"

Use --line when you can point to a specific location:

mai add-note tre-5c4a --file src/auth.ts --line 42 \
  "Race condition starts here — two concurrent callers both see expired token."

3. Leave a verdict

mai add-note tre-5c4a "Verdict: changes requested. 2 findings on 2 files."

Fixing

Fix agent arrives

mai show tre-5c4a             # read the review
mai context src/auth.ts
# → tre-5c4a [ticket] (open) Review: auth hardening
#   📌 src/auth.ts: Race condition in token refresh.
#   📌 src/auth.ts:42: Race condition starts here...

The findings are right there — what's wrong, how to fix it, what not to do.

Fix agent works and comments

mai add-note tre-5c4a --file src/auth.ts "Fixed — added single-flight mutex around refresh"
mai add-note tre-5c4a --file src/http.ts "Fixed — exponential backoff with jitter, max 3 retries"

Re-review

Re-reviewer checks

mai context src/auth.ts       # see finding + fix comment side by side
mai context src/http.ts

Approve and close

mai add-note tre-5c4a "Approved. All findings addressed."
mai close tre-5c4a -m "Review complete."

Standalone review artifacts

For reviews that are records (not active work):

mai review "Architecture review findings" --target src/ \
  -d "Findings from the Q1 architecture review."

This creates a type: artifact ticket — born closed. Use mai show to read it, it won't clutter mai ls.

Rules

1. Findings go on files with --file. Not in the ticket body.
2. Every finding has AC and REJECT. The fix agent needs to know what "done" looks like and what to avoid.
3. One finding per concern. Don't lump multiple issues into one comment.
4. Use --line when relevant. Point to the exact location.
5. Check context first. Don't duplicate findings that already exist.
6. Fix agents comment on the same file. --file src/auth.ts "Fixed — added mutex" so the re-reviewer sees finding + fix together.