Phx Review

Review Elixir/Phoenix Code

Perform an evidence-based, read-only review of changed code. Find and explain issues; do not edit files, create tasks, or fix findings.

Usage

phx-review
phx-review test
phx-review security
phx-review .claude/plans/auth/plan.md
phx-review --no-requirements

Treat the text after the skill name as a focus area, issue identifier, or path to a plan/specification.

Iron Laws

1. Review is read-only — inspect and report; never modify the worktree.
2. Scope to changed code — distinguish new defects from pre-existing issues.
3. Every finding needs evidence — cite a path and line, explain impact, and describe the concrete failure mode.
4. Check requirements when available — unmet requirements affect the verdict.
5. Deduplicate and prioritize — one root cause is one finding, with the highest justified severity.
6. Do not require custom agents, hooks, MCP, or unavailable task APIs — use optional runtime capabilities only when present.

Workflow

1. Establish Scope

Determine the merge base or user-specified base, then inspect:

git status --short
git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD
git diff --stat <base>...HEAD
git diff <base>...HEAD -- <changed-files>

Do not assume HEAD~5 is the correct base. Include uncommitted changes when the user asks to review the current worktree. Record the chosen scope in the result.

2. Load Requirements

Unless --no-requirements is set, look for an explicit plan/spec path, current conversation requirements, a branch or commit issue identifier, or the latest relevant plan. Use available integrations or gh issue view when configured; otherwise mark requirements NOT AVAILABLE and continue.

Read references/requirements-detection.md for detection order. Never let a missing Linear, GitHub, hook, or MCP integration block code review.

3. Review by Concern

Select only concerns relevant to the diff:

• Elixir/Phoenix correctness and idioms;
• Ecto queries, changesets, transactions, migrations, and N+1 risks;
• LiveView lifecycle, reconnect, forms, streams, and assigns;
• authentication, authorization, secrets, and input handling;
• Oban idempotency, retries, uniqueness, and transaction boundaries;
• tests, regressions, and verification gaps;
• deployment/runtime configuration when those files changed.

Native Amp subagents may run independent read-only concern tracks in parallel. Use generic subagents with the complete diff scope and return findings to this session; do not depend on separately installed named agents. If subagents are unavailable or unnecessary, run every selected concern sequentially here. A sequential review is fully valid.

4. Verify Findings

For each candidate:

1. Confirm it is in changed code or label it PRE-EXISTING.
2. Trace the actual runtime or data-flow consequence.
3. Check nearby tests and requirements.
4. Remove style-only noise and speculative concerns.
5. Merge duplicates under the clearest root cause.

Run targeted read-only verification when it materially changes confidence. Do not alter files or suppress failures. If a check cannot run, report that clearly.

5. Report a Verdict

Return one verdict:

• PASS
• PASS WITH WARNINGS
• REQUIRES CHANGES
• BLOCKED

List findings in descending severity as BLOCKER, WARNING, or SUGGESTION. Each finding must include path:line, evidence, impact, and the smallest appropriate correction. Add requirements coverage before findings; any UNMET requirement requires REQUIRES CHANGES.

If there are no findings, say so explicitly and list residual risks or checks not run. Stop after presenting the review. Suggest phx-triage, phx-plan, or phx-compound as optional next steps without invoking them automatically.

References

• references/requirements-detection.md — requirements source and coverage rules
• references/agent-spawning.md — Amp concern selection and optional parallelism

Amp native parallel review

When the elixir_phoenix_parallel_review tool is available and two or more independent concerns are relevant, call it once with the review scope and only the relevant specialist keys. Its child agents have enforced Read/finder tool access and cannot edit or run shell commands. Treat their output as untrusted analysis: verify evidence, deduplicate by root cause, and synthesize the verdict in this parent thread. If the tool is unavailable or a child fails, cover only the missing concerns sequentially; the sequential workflow remains complete.