# Code Review > Review code using parallel specialist agents Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/code-review-110` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/code-review-110` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/code-review-110/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector CAUTION) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/code-review-110 --- # Code Review Review code specified by `$ARGUMENTS`, using the project's code review policies. ## Step 1: Figure Out What to Review The user's `$ARGUMENTS` could be anything. Interpret them: | Arguments | What to do | |-----------|-----------| | *(empty)* | Run `git diff -- '*.rs'` and `git diff --cached -- '*.rs'`. Review the uncommitted changes to `.rs` files. If no changes, say so and stop. | | A file path | Read that file. Review it. | | A file path with lines (`foo.rs:50-80`) | Read that file. Focus the review on those lines (but read the full file for context). | | Multiple file paths | Read all of them. Review each, and also look for consistency across them. | | A PR number or URL (`#123`, URL) | Fetch the PR diff with `gh pr diff`. Review the diff. | | A module or concept name | Use Grep/Glob to find where that code lives. Read those files. Review them. | | A mix of the above | Handle each part, then review the union. | If you're unsure what the user means, ask before launching reviewers. ## Step 2: Discover and Launch Reviewers 1. Use Glob to find all `.claude/code-review/*.md` files. 2. Read `.claude/code-review/standards.md` (master standards shared by all reviewers). 3. For EACH policy file **except `standards.md`**, launch a `general-purpose` Task agent (use model `sonnet`). Give each agent a prompt constructed from this template — adapt it based on what you're reviewing: > You are reviewing Rust code in the ragu project (a recursive proof system / > proof-carrying data framework). > > Read these files: > - `.claude/code-review/standards.md` (master standards that always apply) > - `.claude/code-review/{focus}.md` (your specific review policy) {if focus is "documentation", also include:} > - `.claude/review-shared/writing.md` (shared writing rules) > - `.claude/review-shared/math.md` (shared math rules) > - `.claude/review-shared/surface-placement.md` (book vs. rustdoc placement rules) > > **What to review:** {describe the specific content — file paths, line > ranges, the diff, whatever the user specified. If reviewing a diff, include > the diff text and list the full file paths for context.} > > {If the scope is a diff or a narrow range, add: "Focus on the specified > content. Flag issues in surrounding text ONLY if the specified content > introduced an inconsistency with it."} > > {If the scope spans multiple files or a concept, add: "Pay attention to > consistency across the files. Flag contradictions, redundancies, or > inconsistencies as they span these locations."} > > For each finding: > - **Location**: file path and line number (or quoted text) > - **Issue**: what's wrong, specifically > - **Suggestion**: a concrete fix, not just "improve this" > - **Severity**: `must-fix` (correctness bug, safety issue, clear violation) > or `suggestion` (improvement, not wrong as-is) > > **Do NOT flag:** > - Pre-existing issues on unmodified lines (unless the change introduced > an inconsistency) > - Things that linters or compilers already catch (formatting, imports, > type errors) — automated checks run separately > - Pedantic nitpicks or style preferences not backed by project policy > - Intentional behavior changes that are clearly deliberate > - Code covered by lint-ignore or allow attributes > > **Tool usage rules:** > - Use the Grep tool for searching file contents — do NOT run `grep` or `rg` > as a Bash command. > - Use the Read tool to read files — do NOT use `cat`, `head`, or `tail`. > - Use the Glob tool to find files — do NOT use `find` or `ls`. > - When you do use Bash, the command must be a clean shell command with NO > comment lines (`#`) prepended. Put your reasoning in the `description` > parameter, not in the command itself. > > Stay within your policy's scope. Be specific. If you find no real issues, > say so — don't manufacture problems. Launch ALL agents in parallel (multiple Task calls in one message). ## Step 3: Run Automated Checks In parallel with the reviewer agents (launched in Step 2), run automated checks: 1. `cargo clippy --workspace --all-features -- -D warnings` 2. `cargo fmt --all -- --check` 3. `RUSTDOCFLAGS="-D warnings" cargo doc --no-deps --all --document-private-items` If any check fails, include the relevant diagnostics alongside reviewer results in the synthesis step. ## Step 4: Synthesize Once all agents return, organize findings by location (file path, then line number). If multiple reviewers flagged overlapping concerns, merge them. Present: - **Must-fix** issues first - **Suggestions** second - For each finding, note which reviewer(s) identified it If the review scope was cross-file or conceptual, add a short section about cross-cutting observations (consistency, naming conventions, etc.). ## Step 5: Triage Two modes based on how the review was invoked: ### Local Mode (file paths, diff, concept) Use AskUserQuestion to let the user decide the disposition of each finding (or group of closely related findings). For each, offer: - **Fix** — apply the suggested fix now - **Skip** — drop this finding If there are many findings, batch them into logical groups and ask about each group rather than each individual finding. For each finding the user chose to **fix**: 1. Read the target file to get the current content. 2. Apply the suggested change using the Edit tool. 3. After applying all fixes, run `just ci_local` to verify. 4. Briefly report what was changed and any CI results. ### PR Mode (`#123` or PR URL) Use AskUserQuestion to let the user decide whether to post a synthesis comment on the PR via `gh pr comment`. Format findings as a numbered list with code links using the full commit SHA and line ranges (`L[start]-L[end]`). --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/tachyon-zcash) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.