# Michaelleehobbs Chronicler Deep Review

> Deep Code Review — Multi-Agent Analysis

- Skill: `tomevault-io/michaelleehobbs-chronicler-deep-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/michaelleehobbs-chronicler-deep-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/michaelleehobbs-chronicler-deep-review/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- 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/michaelleehobbs-chronicler-deep-review

---


# Deep Code Review — Multi-Agent Analysis

You are orchestrating a comprehensive code review using 5 specialized reviewer agents running in parallel. This produces a detailed review document with severity-tagged findings.

## Scope

The review scope is: **$ARGUMENTS** (default: `all` — review the entire `src/` directory)

## Instructions

### 1. Prepare the review

- **Generate a real timestamp** by running `date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H-%M-%S` via the Bash tool. Use the actual output — do NOT hardcode or guess a timestamp.
- Determine files to review:
  - If scope is `all` or empty: all `.ts` files under `src/`
  - If scope is a directory: all `.ts` files under that directory
  - If scope is a glob: matching files
- Read the reference checklists:
  - `.claude/skills/deep-review/references/review-checklist.md`
  - `.claude/skills/deep-review/references/security-checklist.md`
- Check if `docs/reviews/accepted-deviations.md` exists. If it does, read it — these are items that have been reviewed and accepted in prior reviews. **Agents MUST skip these items.**
- Check if a coding standard exists at `.claude/docs/` (e.g., a TypeScript coding standard) and load it if present

### 2. Launch 5 parallel reviewer agents

Use the **Task tool** to launch these 5 agents in parallel. Each agent should receive:

- The list of files to review
- The relevant checklist/standard sections
- If the accepted deviations file exists, its full contents — agents MUST NOT re-flag any accepted deviation
- Instructions to output findings in the structured format below

Read the agent definitions from `.claude/agents/` for each reviewer's specific instructions:

#### Agent 1: Security Reviewer

- **Agent definition**: `.claude/agents/security-reviewer.md`
- **Focus**: OWASP Top 10, input validation (Rules 7.2, 7.4), secrets, injection, crypto

#### Agent 2: Standards Reviewer

- **Agent definition**: `.claude/agents/standards-reviewer.md`
- **Focus**: All shall-level rules from the coding standard

#### Agent 3: YAGNI Reviewer

- **Agent definition**: `.claude/agents/yagni-reviewer.md`
- **Focus**: Over-engineering, dead code, unnecessary abstractions, premature optimization

#### Agent 4: Architecture Reviewer

- **Agent definition**: `.claude/agents/architecture-reviewer.md`
- **Focus**: Modularity (Rule 10.3), dependency direction, SOLID principles, circular deps

#### Agent 5: Goal Reviewer

- **Agent definition**: `.claude/agents/goal-reviewer.md`
- **Focus**: Does the code achieve its stated goals? Edge cases? Completeness?

### 3. Consolidate findings

After all 5 agents complete, merge their findings into a single review document.

Each finding should be tagged with a severity:

- **CRITICAL** — Must fix. Security vulnerability, data loss risk, or standard violation that could cause runtime failure
- **HIGH** — Should fix. Significant standard violation or architectural concern
- **MEDIUM** — Consider fixing. Minor standard deviation or improvement opportunity
- **LOW** — Nice to have. Style suggestion or minor optimization

De-duplicate findings that appear in multiple reviewers' output (keep the highest severity).

### 4. Write the review document

Create the directory `docs/reviews/` if it doesn't exist, then write the consolidated review to `docs/reviews/review-${TIMESTAMP}.md`.

Use this template — note the distinction between open findings `- [ ]` and the two resolution states `[x] Fixed` vs `[~] Accepted`:

```markdown
# Deep Code Review — ${TIMESTAMP}

**Scope**: ${SCOPE}
**Files reviewed**: N
**Reviewers**: Security, Standards, YAGNI, Architecture, Goal

## Executive Summary

<2-4 sentences summarizing overall code quality and top concerns>

**Findings**: N total (X critical, Y high, Z medium, W low)

## Critical Findings

- [ ] C-1: `file.ts:42` — **[Security]** Description of the finding

## High Findings

- [ ] H-1: `file.ts:88` — **[Architecture]** Description of the finding

## Medium Findings

- [ ] M-1: `file.ts:22` — **[YAGNI]** Description of the finding

## Low Findings

- [ ] L-1: `file.ts:5` — **[Goal]** Description of the finding

## Per-Reviewer Details

### Security Review

<Security reviewer's detailed findings>

### Standards Compliance Review

<Standards reviewer's detailed findings>

### YAGNI Review

<YAGNI reviewer's detailed findings>

### Architecture Review

<Architecture reviewer's detailed findings>

### Goal Alignment Review

<Goal reviewer's detailed findings>

## Recommendations

1. Prioritized list of actions
2. ...

---

_Generated by /deep-review on ${TIMESTAMP}_
```

**Resolution marking** (for when findings are addressed later — NOT during the review itself):

- `- [x] H-1: ... **Fixed:** <brief description of the code change>`
- `- [~] H-1: ... **Accepted:** <rationale for why this is not being fixed>`

When a finding is accepted, it should also be added to `docs/reviews/accepted-deviations.md` so future reviews skip it.

### 5. Report to user

- Show the file path of the generated review
- Display the executive summary and finding counts by severity
- If there are critical findings, emphasize they must be addressed before deployment

---
> Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/michaelleehobbs) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.
<!-- tomevault:4.0:skill_md:2026-04-13 -->