# Del Taiseiozaki Claude Code Orchestra Team Review > Team Review - Skill: `tomevault-io/del-taiseiozaki-claude-code-orchestra-team-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/del-taiseiozaki-claude-code-orchestra-team-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/del-taiseiozaki-claude-code-orchestra-team-review/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/del-taiseiozaki-claude-code-orchestra-team-review --- # Team Review **Parallel review using Agent Teams. Review from multiple perspectives simultaneously after implementation is complete.** ## Prerequisites - Implementation is complete (after `/team-implement` or manual implementation) - All tests are passing ## Workflow ``` Step 1: Gather Diff Collect change diffs from the implementation scope ↓ Step 2: Spawn Review Team Launch specialized reviewers in parallel ↓ Step 3: Synthesize Findings Integrate review results and prioritize ↓ Step 4: Report to User Present findings and recommended actions ``` --- ## Step 1: Gather Diff **Identify the scope of changes to review.** ```bash # All changes from main branch git diff main...HEAD # Changed files list git diff main...HEAD --name-only # Commit history git log main..HEAD --oneline ``` --- ## Step 2: Spawn Review Team **Launch reviewers with specialized perspectives in parallel.** ``` Create an agent team to review implementation of: {feature} The following files were changed: {changed files list} Spawn reviewers: 1. **Security Reviewer** Prompt: "You are a Security Reviewer for: {feature}. Review all changed files for security vulnerabilities: - Hardcoded secrets or credentials - SQL injection, XSS, command injection - Input validation gaps - Authentication/authorization issues - Sensitive data exposure in logs/errors - Dependency vulnerabilities Changed files: {list} Reference: .claude/rules/security.md For each finding: - Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low - File and line number - Description of the issue - Recommended fix Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-security-{feature}.md IMPORTANT — Work Log: When your review is complete, write a work log file to: .claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/security-reviewer.md Use this format: # Work Log: Security Reviewer ## Summary (1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings) ## Review Scope - Files reviewed: {list} - Focus areas: {list} ## Findings - [{severity}] {file}:{line} — {issue summary} ## Communication with Teammates - → {recipient}: {summary of message sent} - ← {sender}: {summary of message received} (If none, write 'None') ## Issues Encountered - {issue}: {how it was resolved} (If none, write 'None') " 2. **Quality Reviewer** Prompt: "You are a Quality Reviewer for: {feature}. Review all changed files for code quality: - Adherence to coding principles (.claude/rules/coding-principles.md) - Single responsibility violations - Deep nesting (should use early return) - Missing type hints - Magic numbers - Naming clarity - Function length (target < 20 lines) - Library constraint violations (.claude/docs/libraries/) Use Codex CLI for deep analysis of complex logic: codex exec --model gpt-5.4 --sandbox read-only --full-auto "{question}" 2>/dev/null Changed files: {list} For each finding: - Severity: High / Medium / Low - File and line number - Current code - Suggested improvement Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-quality-{feature}.md IMPORTANT — Work Log: When your review is complete, write a work log file to: .claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/quality-reviewer.md Use this format: # Work Log: Quality Reviewer ## Summary (1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings) ## Review Scope - Files reviewed: {list} - Focus areas: {list} ## Findings - [{severity}] {file}:{line} — {issue summary} ## Codex Consultations - {question asked to Codex}: {key insight from response} ## Communication with Teammates - → {recipient}: {summary of message sent} - ← {sender}: {summary of message received} (If none, write 'None') ## Issues Encountered - {issue}: {how it was resolved} (If none, write 'None') " 3. **Test Reviewer** Prompt: "You are a Test Reviewer for: {feature}. Review test coverage and quality: - Run: uv run pytest --cov=src --cov-report=term-missing - Check: Are all happy paths tested? - Check: Are error cases covered? - Check: Are boundary values tested? - Check: Are edge cases handled? - Check: Are external deps properly mocked? - Check: Do tests follow AAA pattern? - Check: Are tests independent (no order dependency)? Reference: .claude/rules/testing.md For each gap: - File/function missing coverage - What test cases are needed - Priority: High / Medium / Low Save report to .claude/docs/research/review-tests-{feature}.md IMPORTANT — Work Log: When your review is complete, write a work log file to: .claude/logs/agent-teams/{team-name}/test-reviewer.md Use this format: # Work Log: Test Reviewer ## Summary (1-2 sentence summary of review scope and key findings) ## Review Scope - Files reviewed: {list} - Coverage: {percentage} ## Findings - [{priority}] {file/function}: {missing test case description} ## Test Execution Results - Total: {N} tests, Passed: {N}, Failed: {N} - Coverage: {percentage} ## Communication with Teammates - → {recipient}: {summary of message sent} - ← {sender}: {summary of message received} (If none, write 'None') ## Issues Encountered - {issue}: {how it was resolved} (If none, write 'None') " Wait for all reviewers to complete. ``` ### Optional: Competing Hypotheses (for debugging) For bug investigation, add adversarial reviewers: ``` Spawn 3-5 teammates with different hypotheses about the bug. Have them actively try to disprove each other's theories. ``` --- ## Step 3: Synthesize Findings **Integrate results from all reviewers and assign priorities.** Read review reports: - `.claude/docs/research/review-security-{feature}.md` - `.claude/docs/research/review-quality-{feature}.md` - `.claude/docs/research/review-tests-{feature}.md` ### Prioritization | Priority | Criteria | Action | |----------|----------|--------| | **Critical** | Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk | Must fix before merge | | **High** | Bugs, missing critical tests, type errors | Should fix before merge | | **Medium** | Code quality, naming, patterns | Fix if time allows | | **Low** | Style, minor improvements | Track for later | --- ## Step 4: Report to User **Present the integrated review results to the user.** ```markdown ## Review Results: {feature} ### Summary - Security: {N} findings (Critical: {n}, High: {n}, Medium: {n}) - Code Quality: {N} findings (High: {n}, Medium: {n}, Low: {n}) - Test Coverage: {N}% ({above/below} the 80% target) ### Critical / High Findings #### [{Severity}] {Issue Title} - **File**: `{file}:{line}` - **Issue**: {description} - **Recommended Fix**: {recommended fix} ... ### Recommended Actions 1. {Action 1 — Critical fix} 2. {Action 2 — High priority fix} 3. {Action 3 — Test gap to fill} ### Medium / Low Findings {Brief list — details in review reports} --- Shall we proceed with fixes? ``` ### Cleanup ``` Clean up the team ``` --- ## Tips - **Reviewer specialization**: Each reviewer focuses on a different perspective to prevent blind spots - **Codex utilization**: Quality Reviewer delegates complex logic analysis to Codex - **Report persistence**: Save review results in `.claude/docs/research/` for reference during fixes - **Competing hypotheses mode**: Adversarial review pattern is effective for bug investigation - **Cost awareness**: 3 reviewers = 3x token consumption. For small changes, a subagent-based review is sufficient --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/del-taiseiozaki) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.