majiayu000 /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