# S Akinori My Claude Code Orchestra Team Review > Team Review - Skill: `tomevault-io/s-akinori-my-claude-code-orchestra-team-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/s-akinori-my-claude-code-orchestra-team-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/s-akinori-my-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/s-akinori-my-claude-code-orchestra-team-review --- # Team Review **Agent Teams による並列レビュー。実装完了後に複数の視点から同時にレビューする。** ## Prerequisites - 実装が完了していること（`/team-implement` 後、または手動実装後） - 全テストが通過していること ## Workflow ``` Step 1: Gather Diff 実装範囲の変更差分を収集 ↓ Step 2: Spawn Review Team 専門レビュアーを並列起動 ↓ Step 3: Synthesize Findings レビュー結果を統合、優先度付け ↓ Step 4: Report to User 発見事項と推奨アクションを提示 ``` --- ## Step 1: Gather Diff **レビュー対象の変更範囲を特定する。** ```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 **専門的な視点を持つレビュアーを並列起動する。** ``` 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" 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-5.3-codex --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" 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" 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 **全レビュアーの結果を統合し、優先度付けする。** 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 **統合レビュー結果をユーザーに提示する（日本語）。** ```markdown ## レビュー結果: {feature} ### サマリー - セキュリティ: {N}件 (Critical: {n}, High: {n}, Medium: {n}) - コード品質: {N}件 (High: {n}, Medium: {n}, Low: {n}) - テストカバレッジ: {N}% (目標80%に対して {above/below}) ### Critical / High 発見事項 #### [{Severity}] {Issue Title} - **ファイル**: `{file}:{line}` - **問題**: {description} - **修正案**: {recommended fix} ... ### 推奨アクション 1. {Action 1 — Critical fix} 2. {Action 2 — High priority fix} 3. {Action 3 — Test gap to fill} ### Medium / Low 発見事項 {Brief list — details in review reports} --- 修正を行いますか？ ``` ### Cleanup ``` Clean up the team ``` --- ## Tips - **レビュアーの専門分化**: 各レビュアーが異なる視点に集中することで漏れを防ぐ - **Codex 活用**: Quality Reviewer が複雑なロジックを Codex に分析させる - **レポート永続化**: `.claude/docs/research/` にレビュー結果を保存し、修正時の参照に - **競合仮説モード**: バグ調査時は adversarial review パターンが有効 - **コスト注意**: 3レビュアー = 3x トークン消費。小規模変更にはサブエージェント経由のレビューで十分 --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/s-akinori) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.