# Code Review > Multi-agent code review for local changes, files, or directories. Detects bugs, security issues, and conventions-file violations (AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md/GEMINI.md). Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/code-review-277` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/code-review-277` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/code-review-277/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/code-review-277 --- # Code Review Provide a code review for the given code changes (e.g. local changes, a file, or a directory). ## Steps Make a todo list first, then follow these steps precisely: ### 1. Gather context - Use a sub-agent to list file paths of relevant conventions files in this priority order: AGENTS.md, then CLAUDE.md, then GEMINI.md. Include the root file (if one exists), plus files in directories whose files were changed. - Use a sub-agent to scan the code changes and return a summary of the change. ### 2. Parallel review Launch 5 parallel sub-agents to independently review the change. Each agent returns a list of issues with the reason flagged (e.g. conventions-file adherence, bug, historical context): - **Agent 1 — Conventions-file compliance**: Audit changes against AGENTS.md or similar conventions files (CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md), using priority order AGENTS.md -> CLAUDE.md -> GEMINI.md. Note that these files are guidance for AI while writing code; not all instructions apply during code review. - **Agent 2 — Bug scan**: Shallow scan for obvious bugs, focusing only on the changed lines. Prioritize large bugs; ignore nitpicks and likely false positives. - **Agent 3 — Git history**: Read git blame and history of modified code to identify bugs in light of historical context. - **Agent 4 — Code comments**: Read comments in modified files and verify the changes comply with any guidance in those comments. - **Agent 5 — Security & quality**: Look for security issues and code quality problems that would directly impact functionality. ### 3. Confidence scoring For each issue found in step 2, launch a parallel sub-agent to score it from 0–100 (give this rubric to each agent verbatim): - **0** — Not confident at all. False positive that doesn't stand up to light scrutiny, or a pre-existing issue. - **25** — Somewhat confident. Might be real, but unverified. If stylistic, not explicitly called out in the applicable conventions file. - **50** — Moderately confident. Verified as real, but may be a nitpick or rare in practice. Not very important relative to the rest of the change. - **75** — Highly confident. Double-checked; very likely a real issue that will be hit in practice. Important and directly impacts functionality, or directly mentioned in the applicable conventions file. - **100** — Absolutely certain. Confirmed real issue that will happen frequently. Evidence directly confirms it. For issues flagged due to conventions files, double-check that the applicable conventions file actually calls out that issue specifically. ### 4. Filter and output - Discard issues scoring below 80. - If no issues remain, output that no issues were found. - Output the review directly to the user following the output format below. ## False Positives Treat the following as false positives in steps 2 and 3: - Pre-existing issues - Something that looks like a bug but is not actually a bug - Pedantic nitpicks that a senior engineer wouldn't call out - Issues a linter, typechecker, or compiler would catch (missing imports, type errors, formatting). Assume these run separately in CI. - General code quality issues (lack of test coverage, poor documentation), unless explicitly required in a conventions file - Issues called out in a conventions file but explicitly silenced in code (e.g. a lint-ignore comment) - Intentional functionality changes directly related to the broader change - Real issues on lines the user did not modify ## Notes - Do not attempt to build or typecheck the app — these run separately in CI. - Cite and link each issue. If referring to a conventions file, you must link it. ## Output Format ### With issues found ``` ### Code review Found N issues: 1. (conventions file says "<...>") 2. (some/other conventions file says "<...>") 3. (bug due to ) ``` ### No issues found ``` ### Code review No issues found. Checked for bugs and conventions-file compliance. ``` --- > Source: [euxx/claude-skills-for-copilot](https://github.com/euxx/claude-skills-for-copilot) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).