Code Review

/code-review

You are the marshal. Read the diff, dispatch diverse fresh-context reviewers, synthesize, fix blockers, loop until clean. The authoring agent never ships on its own review — that is the one hard rule.

Dispatch

1. Scope = the diff. git diff <base>...HEAD (default base: the repo's default branch). Classify what changed: API, UI, security surface, data model, infra, docs.
2. Learnings audit. Grep matched learnings before dispatch: rg -n --glob '*.md' '^(title|tags|applies_when):|<module>|<failure-mode>' docs/solutions. For each applicable match, the synthesis includes followed|violated <learning title> <file:line> <why>; no file:line means the verdict is not anchored.
3. Choose the risk tier. Use harnesses/shared/references/quality-system.md to decide whether the diff needs a tiny, substantive, high-stakes, or Mode B review topology. Scale to the failure cost, not to habit.
4. Fan out in parallel, decorrelated. Native subagents for focused lenses (pick 2–4 that fit the diff: correctness, security, simplicity, tests); peer harness CLIs (/roster) for cross-model judgment — a different model family has decorrelated failure modes. If the harness can run a large-scale background orchestration where reviewers adversarially cross-check each other's findings before reporting, a substantive diff is a natural fit — that scale costs tokens, so routine diffs don't get it. Reviewers get the diff, the acceptance oracle, and a risk lens — never the author's reasoning trail. When the delivery logged deviations, hand reviewers the deviation sites — where the plan bent is where plausible-but-wrong concentrates — but never the author's justifications for them. Add harnesses/shared/references/works-critique.md when the diff touches public API, CLI, UI, performance, compatibility, migration, or operator workflow. Add harnesses/shared/references/delete-first.md when the diff adds abstraction, automation, dependencies, modes, or optimization; pair it with the synced Ponytail skill (skills/.external/dietrich-ponytail/SKILL.md) when the main risk is bloat, boilerplate, or speculative engineering. Add the synced Thermo-Nuclear skill (skills/.external/cursor-thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review/SKILL.md) whenever the diff changes meaningful implementation structure, grows large files, adds wrappers, or risks spaghetti branching; this is the default harsh maintainability lens, not a last resort. Add harnesses/shared/references/verification-system-first.md when the diff's proof story is missing, weak, eval/benchmark-shaped, or depends on QA/manual judgment.
5. Aim reviewers at production embarrassment, not nitpicks. Tell each one what to ignore (style, naming, speculative "consider…") as explicitly as what to find.

What reviewers hunt

Plausible-but-wrong is the failure mode of model-written code:

• Stub or specification-shaped implementations that pass tests but don't work
• Wrong complexity (O(n²) hiding behind a clean interface)
• Tests that never invoke the changed entrypoint (adjacent green lanes)
• Missing verification system: no claim, falsifier, driver, grader, evidence packet, or cadence for a substantive change
• Missing invariant checks that only matter at scale or under concurrency
• Unnecessary abstraction — wrappers, modes, layers that don't earn their keep
• Swallowed errors, magic fallbacks, internal mocks

If the diff adds or changes an executable path (CLI, script, migration, job), someone must run it once or cite the gate that does — otherwise it's an unverified runtime path and blocks Ship. If the diff touches a visual or user-facing surface, at least one reviewer exercises it live. If the diff claims eval, benchmark, QA, or agent-behavior improvement, reviewers must inspect the driver and grader, not just the report prose.

Synthesize and verdict

Dedupe across reviewers; rank blocking (correctness, security, unverified runtime path) > important (architecture, test strength) > advisory (everything else). Blocking findings get fixed and the fix re-reviewed — full pass, not a spot-check. Max 3 fix-review iterations, then escalate to the operator with the open findings. Ship / Don't-ship is the lead's call on the reviewers' evidence; advisory findings never block. When the receipt pile is large, use julius-caveman compression for the synthesis only. Findings must stay precise; PR comments and code suggestions stay normal English unless the operator explicitly asks otherwise.

Gotchas

• Monoculture. Same-model subagents alone are groupthink with extra steps. Substantive diffs get at least one other model family.
• Reviewing the repo instead of the diff. Scope discipline keeps findings actionable.
• Treating all findings equally. Severity ranking is the marshal's job; a wall of undifferentiated comments is review theater.
• Skipping re-review after fixes. A fix can introduce the next bug; blockers get a fresh pass.