NodeJSmith Technical Review
Dispatches three parallel reviewers adapted to content type. Code: correctness, integration fit, readability. Instruction files: consistency, instruction quality, writing quality. Consolidates into a prioritized report.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS — optional scope. Empty for full branch diff, or a directory/file list. Path mode when files exist with no branch changes.
Phase 1: Determine Scope
Read and execute ${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR:-~/.claude}/skills/mine-review/scope-detection.md.
Phase 2: Dispatch Reviewers
Pre-compute diff (diff mode only)
get-skill-tmpdir mine-review→<tmpdir>git rev-parse HEAD→<sha><diff command> > <tmpdir>/diff.patch
Detect review mode
A file is an instruction file if it has a .md extension. If ALL files are instruction files, use instruction mode. Otherwise code mode.
Build scope line
- Diff mode:
Diff at <tmpdir>/diff.patch (HEAD: <sha>). Read changed files for surrounding context. Before relying on the diff, verify HEAD matches <sha>. - Path mode:
Review these existing files (not a diff): <file list> - Instruction diff mode — append:
Read every changed file in full, not just diff hunks.
Code mode — dispatch all three in one message
Each agent has its own checklist and output format. Pass scope only:
subagent_type: "code-reviewer"—Review changes. <scope line>subagent_type: "integration-reviewer"—Review changes. <scope line>subagent_type: "wtf-reviewer"—Review changes. <scope line>
Instruction mode — dispatch all three in one message
subagent_type: "fine-toothed-comb"—Review these instruction files for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. <scope line>. Read sibling files for cross-reference context.subagent_type: "instruction-quality-reviewer"—Review these instruction files. <scope line>subagent_type: "writing-quality-reviewer"—Review these instruction files. <scope line>
Phase 3: Consolidate and Present
Deduplicate
If two reviewers flagged the same issue, keep one entry and note the cross-signal: (flagged by code-review + readability pass).
Validity assessment
Apply the protocol from ${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR:-~/.claude}/skills/mine-challenge/findings-protocol.md: findings valid by default; flagging one as likely invalid requires a concrete evidence trail.
Present the report
Organize by severity, not by reviewer. Report header:
## [Technical|Instruction] Review: [branch name or target path]
**Scope:** N files changed, +X/-Y lines (diff) | N files, X total lines (path)
**[Reviewer 1]:** PASS / WARN / FAIL
**[Reviewer 2]:** PASS / WARN / FAIL
**[Reviewer 3]:** X findings (N HIGH, N MEDIUM, N LOW)
**Likely-invalid:** N
Source labels — code mode: Code, Integration, Readability. Instruction mode: Consistency, Instruction, Writing.
Findings in severity-grouped tables (### Critical / High, ### Medium, ### Low). Each finding includes the proposed fix — the specific edit that would be applied. The user decides what to fix based on seeing both the problem and the proposed edit. Likely-invalid findings in a separate section with Claimed/Actually/Why-invalid fields.
Next steps
This is a major gate (review/challenge finding walkthrough, see interaction.md) — run
context-pct and prepend the result to the question:
AskUserQuestion:
question: "[Context: N%] What would you like to do with these findings?"
header: "Next steps"
multiSelect: false
options:
- label: "Fix all"
description: "Apply the proposed fixes listed above, highest severity down, then re-read the modified content"
- label: "Fix critical/high only"
description: "Address blockers, leave medium/low for later"
- label: "Note and move on"
description: "Acknowledged — no fixes this session"
If fixing: work through findings top-down by severity, making edits directly. After fixes: "Fixes complete — run /mine-commit-push or proceed to commit when ready."
What This Skill Does NOT Do
- Deep codebase audit — use
/mine-audit - Exhaustive style sweep — use
/mine-clean-code - Automatic fixing without asking — it diagnoses, then asks what to fix