# Mauromedda Agent Toolkit Gemini Review > ABOUTME: Skill for invoking Gemini CLI for design reviews and code analysis - Skill: `tomevault-io/mauromedda-agent-toolkit-gemini-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/mauromedda-agent-toolkit-gemini-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/mauromedda-agent-toolkit-gemini-review/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector CAUTION) - 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/mauromedda-agent-toolkit-gemini-review --- # ABOUTME: Skill for invoking Gemini CLI for design reviews and code analysis # ABOUTME: Enforces the Gemini collaboration workflow defined in CLAUDE.md # Gemini Review Skill **Full details**: `references/workflow.md` Invoke Gemini for collaborative design and code review. ## 🛑 COMPLETION TRIGGER DETECTION **STOP IMMEDIATELY when you catch yourself saying/thinking:** | Trigger Phrase | Action | |----------------|--------| | "All tasks are complete" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | | "Let me run the tests" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | | "Now let me commit" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | | "I've finished implementing" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | | "Let me provide a summary" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | | "Implementation is done" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | | Marking last todo as "completed" | ❌ STOP → Check Gemini threshold | **These phrases are BLOCKING triggers.** You MUST NOT proceed until you've verified Gemini review status. ## 🚨 MANDATORY THRESHOLD CHECK **This is a BLOCKING checkpoint. Execute BEFORE tests/summary/commit:** ``` ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ 🛑 STOP - GEMINI REVIEW CHECKPOINT ║ ║ ║ ║ STEP 1: Count your changes ║ ║ Run: git diff --stat | tail -5 ║ ║ ║ ║ STEP 2: Check thresholds ║ ║ □ Modified/created MORE than 3 files with logic changes? ║ ║ □ Wrote MORE than 100 lines of code? ║ ║ □ Touched security or performance code? ║ ║ ║ ║ STEP 3: Take action ║ ║ ANY YES → CALL GEMINI NOW (before tests, before summary) ║ ║ ALL NO → Skip Gemini, proceed to tests ║ ║ ║ ║ ⚠️ DO NOT mark todos complete until this check passes ║ ║ ⚠️ DO NOT run tests until this check passes ║ ║ ⚠️ DO NOT provide summary until this check passes ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝ ``` **Why this matters:** In session 1ea73ffd, Claude modified 8+ files with 300+ lines but skipped Gemini review entirely. This checkpoint prevents that failure mode. ## 🔄 RESUMED SESSION CHECKPOINT **When a session is resumed from context compaction, STOP and check:** ``` ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ SESSION RESUMED - MANDATORY VERIFICATION ║ ║ ║ ║ Before continuing ANY work, answer these questions: ║ ║ ║ ║ 1. Was I in the middle of implementing code? ║ ║ → Check the summary for "in progress" or "pending" tasks ║ ║ ║ ║ 2. How many files were modified before compaction? ║ ║ → Run: git diff --stat ║ ║ ║ ║ 3. Did I already call Gemini for review? ║ ║ → Search summary for "gemini" or "code review" ║ ║ ║ ║ If implementation was in progress AND Gemini wasn't called: ║ ║ → CALL GEMINI FIRST before continuing implementation ║ ║ ║ ║ If implementation is complete but tests weren't run: ║ ║ → Check thresholds (>100 lines OR >3 files) → Call Gemini ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝ ``` **Why this matters:** Context compaction loses awareness of the workflow state. The summary may say "continue with X" but omit that Gemini review was pending. **Resume workflow:** ``` 1. Session resumes with summary 2. ★ STOP - Read summary carefully ★ 3. Check: Was implementation in progress? 4. Check: git diff --stat for change count 5. If thresholds met AND no Gemini review recorded: → Call Gemini BEFORE continuing 6. Then proceed with the task ``` ## When to Invoke (MANDATORY) | Trigger | Timing | Action | |---------|--------|--------| | **Session resumed/compacted** | **IMMEDIATELY on resume** | Check thresholds | | New feature request | BEFORE proposing solutions | Design review | | Architectural decision | BEFORE proposing solutions | Architecture review | | **Architectural review/analysis** | **BEFORE presenting recommendations** | Architecture review | | **>100 lines changed** | **IMMEDIATELY after implementation** | Code review | | **>3 files with logic changes** | **IMMEDIATELY after implementation** | Code review | | Security-related code | IMMEDIATELY after implementation | Security review | | Performance optimization | IMMEDIATELY after implementation | Performance review | | Cross-service debugging | WHEN data flows between services | Debug review | | Frontend/Backend alignment | WHEN form data doesn't match API | Alignment review | **🚨 CRITICAL - Post-Implementation Checkpoint:** - "IMMEDIATELY after implementation" means BEFORE: - Running tests - Providing summaries to the user - Moving to the next task - Committing changes - If you've just finished writing code across multiple files, STOP and call Gemini NOW - The checkpoint triggers on IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION, not on commit intent **Self-check phrases that should trigger review:** - "I've implemented..." / "I've added..." / "I've modified..." - "Let me run the tests" / "Let me commit" ← STOP! Check threshold first! **CRITICAL**: After codebase exploration, if you are about to produce **recommendations, suggestions, or analysis with actionable items**, you MUST call Gemini first. "Proposing solutions" includes architectural reviews that recommend changes. ## When to Skip - <100 lines AND ≤3 files with only mechanical changes - Mechanical changes: imports, formatting, version bumps - Documentation-only changes - String constant propagation ## How to Invoke **Command format:** ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "Your review prompt here" . ``` **CRITICAL - Model Selection:** - **ALWAYS use `gemini-3-pro-preview`** - this is non-negotiable - Do NOT substitute with other models: - ❌ `gemini-2.5-pro` (older model, less capable) - ❌ `gemini-2.5-flash` (different tier) - ❌ `gemini-3-flash-preview` (different tier) - If `gemini-3-pro-preview` fails, **report the error to the user** rather than silently using a different model **CRITICAL - Execution:** - Always use `timeout: 1800000` (30 min) in Bash tool call - NEVER run as background task; wait for completion synchronously - Always provide `.` as final parameter for codebase access ## Review Prompts by Type ### Design Review (BEFORE implementation) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "I need to implement [FEATURE]. Help me design the architecture: where should the logic live? What patterns work best for this codebase? Propose alternatives with trade-offs." . ``` ### Architecture Review (BEFORE implementation) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "I'm planning to [CHANGE]. Review the current implementation and propose an optimal strategy. How should it integrate with existing patterns?" . ``` ### Architectural Analysis Review (BEFORE presenting findings) Use this when the user asks for architectural review/analysis and you've explored the codebase: ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "I've explored [COMPONENT] architecture. Before presenting my analysis, review: Current findings: - [KEY OBSERVATION 1] - [KEY OBSERVATION 2] Questions for counter-analysis: 1. What separation of concerns issues do you see? 2. What patterns should be applied here? 3. Are there alternative architectural approaches I'm missing? 4. What are the trade-offs of the current design? Provide a counter-analysis to ensure comprehensive review." . ``` ### Code Review (AFTER implementation) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "Review my recent changes for correctness and edge cases. Focus on: [SPECIFIC AREAS]. Check for potential bugs, race conditions, and error handling." . ``` ### Security Review (AFTER implementation) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "Perform a security review of [COMPONENT]. Check for: authentication issues, input validation, token handling, and OWASP top 10 vulnerabilities." . ``` ### Performance Review (AFTER implementation) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "Review the performance optimization I made to [COMPONENT]. Check for: proper async/await usage, memory leaks, and concurrency issues." . ``` ### Cross-Service Debug Review (WHEN debugging multi-service issues) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "Debug cross-service issue: [PROBLEM DESCRIPTION]. Services involved: [LIST SERVICES] Data flow: [DESCRIBE EXPECTED FLOW] Observed behavior: [WHAT'S HAPPENING] Expected behavior: [WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN] Analyze the data contracts between services and identify where the mismatch occurs. Recommend which service should own the fix." . ``` ### Frontend/Backend Alignment Review (WHEN form data doesn't match API) ```bash gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "Frontend/Backend alignment issue: [PROBLEM]. Frontend sends: [FIELDS] Backend expects: [FIELDS] Database schema: [RELEVANT COLUMNS] Should the fix be: A) Frontend explicitly sends the missing field B) Backend derives the field from other data C) Both with validation Analyze both codebases and recommend specific file changes." . ``` ## Integration with TDD Workflow ``` 1. User requests feature 2. Claude explores codebase (Explore agent) 3. Claude calls Gemini for design review ← BEFORE proposing 4. Claude presents options to user 5. User approves approach 6. Claude implements with TDD (Red → Green → Refactor) 7. ★ POST-IMPLEMENTATION CHECKPOINT ★ If >100 lines OR >3 files: Claude calls Gemini for code review ← IMMEDIATELY (before tests/summary) 8. Claude runs tests 9. Claude provides summary to user 10. Claude commits ``` **The checkpoint at step 7 is BLOCKING** - do not proceed to tests or summary until Gemini review is complete. ## Integration with Architectural Analysis ``` 1. User requests architectural review/analysis 2. Claude explores codebase (Explore agent, Read, Grep) 3. Claude has initial findings 4. ★ CHECKPOINT: Am I about to produce recommendations? ★ 5. Claude calls Gemini for counter-analysis ← BEFORE presenting 6. Claude combines findings with Gemini's perspective 7. Claude presents comprehensive analysis to user ``` **Model enforcement**: MANDATORY `gemini-3-pro-preview`. Using any other model (gemini-2.5-pro, gemini-2.5-flash, etc.) is a skill violation. Fail loudly, never substitute silently. ## Failure Recovery If Gemini invocation fails: 1. Check the model name is exactly `gemini-3-pro-preview` (no typos, no substitutions) 2. Verify the `.` context path is correct 3. Retry with a simpler prompt 4. If model is unavailable: **STOP and inform user** - do NOT fall back to another model 5. If still failing, document the failure and proceed with explicit note to user **NEVER do this:** ```bash # WRONG - silently using different model gemini -m gemini-2.5-pro "..." . # ❌ FORBIDDEN ``` ## Example Session ``` User: "Add user authentication to the API" Claude: "I'll explore the codebase first to understand the current structure." [Uses Explore agent] Claude: "Before proposing solutions, let me get Gemini's input on the design." [Invokes this skill] gemini -m gemini-3-pro-preview "I need to add user authentication to this API. Help me design: Should auth be middleware or per-route? JWT vs sessions? Where should user storage live? Propose alternatives with trade-offs." . [Gemini responds with recommendations] Claude: "Based on my exploration and Gemini's recommendations, here are the options..." [Presents options to user] ``` --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/mauromedda) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.