Phxreview

Review Elixir/Phoenix Code

Review code by spawning parallel specialist agents. Find and explain issues — do NOT create tasks or fix anything.

Usage

/phx:review                          # Review all changed files
/phx:review test                     # Review test files only
/phx:review security                 # Run security audit only
/phx:review oban                     # Review Oban workers only
/phx:review deploy                   # Validate deployment config
/phx:review iron-laws                # Check Iron Law violations only
/phx:review .claude/plans/auth/plan.md    # Review implementation of plan

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS = Focus area or path to plan file.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify Changed Files and Prepare Directories

CRITICAL: Create output dirs BEFORE spawning agents — agents cannot create directories and will fail repeatedly on writes.

Determine SLUG from the most recent plan directory (use Glob on .claude/plans/*/), default to "review". Run mkdir -p ".claude/plans/${SLUG}/reviews" ".claude/plans/${SLUG}/summaries" and mkdir -p .claude/reviews.

Then run git diff --name-only HEAD~5 and git diff --name-only main to identify changed files. Save the diff base for pre-existing detection in Step 3b.

Step 1b: Load Plan Context (Scratchpad)

If reviewing a plan, read .claude/plans/${SLUG}/scratchpad.md for planning decisions, rationale, and handoff notes. Include relevant decisions in each agent's prompt so they have context about WHY code was written a certain way. This eliminates session archaeology.

Step 1c: Check Prior Reviews

If .claude/plans/${SLUG}/reviews/ has prior output, include consolidated summary in each agent's prompt as "PRIOR FINDINGS" with instruction: "Focus on NEW issues. Mark still-present issues as PERSISTENT."

Step 2: Create Task List and Spawn Review Agents (MANDATORY)

NEVER spawn the same agent role twice in one review. If reviewing a plan, scope ALL agents to the plan's changed files in a single pass. Do NOT run a scoped review followed by a broader review — one pass per role.

Create a Claude Code task per agent (TaskCreate + TaskUpdate to in_progress) BEFORE spawning. Spawn agents using the Agent tool — do NOT analyze code yourself.

For /phx:review or /phx:review all — select agents dynamically based on the diff, then spawn selected agents in ONE message (parallel):

Agent count: Min 1, max 5. For <200 lines changed: spawn only elixir-reviewer + security-analyzer (if auth files). Log selection rationale in review output. Spawn with mode: "bypassPermissions" and run_in_background: true.

For focused reviews — spawn the specified agent only:

Zero agents spawned = skill failure.

Step 2b: Scope Agents to the Diff (MANDATORY)

Include git diff --name-only in each agent's prompt. Add instruction: "Focus on NEW code from the diff. Pre-existing issues get one line: 'Pre-existing: {file}:{line} — {brief}'. Do NOT deep-analyze unchanged files."

Step 3: Collect and Compress Findings

Wait for ALL agents to FULLY complete. Do NOT report status until every agent completes. Mark each agent's Claude Code task as completed via TaskUpdate as it finishes.

Verification-runner fallback: If it fails/times out, run directly: mix compile --warnings-as-errors && mix format --check-formatted $(git diff --name-only HEAD~5 | grep '\.exs\?$' | tr '\n' ' ') && mix credo --strict && mix test

For 4+ agents: Spawn elixir-phoenix:context-supervisor to compress output:

Prompt: "Compress review agent output.
  input_dir: .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews
  output_dir: .claude/plans/{slug}/summaries
  output_file: review-consolidated.md
  priority_instructions: BLOCKERs and WARNINGs: KEEP ALL.
    SUGGESTIONs: COMPRESS similar ones into groups.
    Deconfliction: when iron-law-judge and elixir-reviewer
    flag same code, keep iron-law-judge finding."

For focused reviews (1 agent): Skip supervisor, read agent output directly.

Step 3b: Filter Findings (Anti-Noise)

Before writing the review, apply these overriding filters to each finding:

1. Would a senior Elixir dev dismiss this as noise?
2. Does the finding add complexity exceeding the problem's complexity?
3. Are any findings duplicates reworded by different agents?
4. Does the finding affect code actually changed in this diff?
5. Is the finding on unchanged code (not in diff)? → Mark PRE-EXISTING

Demote or remove findings that fail filters 1-4. Mark pre-existing per filter 5.

Step 4: Generate Review Summary

Read consolidated/agent output. Write to .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews/{feature}-review.md with verdict: PASS | PASS WITH WARNINGS | REQUIRES CHANGES | BLOCKED.

Step 5: Present Findings and Ask User

STOP and present the review. Do NOT create tasks or fix anything.

On BLOCKED or REQUIRES CHANGES: Show finding count by severity, then offer via AskUserQuestion: /phx:triage (recommended), /phx:plan, fix directly, or "I'll handle it myself".

On PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS: Suggest /phx:compound, /phx:learn-from-fix.

Convention extraction: After presenting findings, offer: "Any findings to suppress or enforce as conventions?" See ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/conventions.md.

Iron Laws

1. Review is READ-ONLY — Find and explain, never fix
2. NEVER auto-fix after review — Always ask the user first
3. Always offer both paths: /phx:plan and /phx:work
4. Research before claiming — Agents MUST research before making claims about CI/CD or external services

Integration

/phx:plan → /phx:work → /phx:review (YOU ARE HERE) → Blocked? /phx:triage or /phx:plan | Pass? /phx:compound

See: ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/review-template.md, ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/example-review.md, ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/blocker-handling.md

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.