review-code

Review Code

Review code against type-specific criteria. Runs internal reviews and $peer-review in parallel by default. Returns combined structured findings.

Types: correctness, security, api-usage, consistency, simplicity, coverage

With a type argument, runs a single-concern internal review plus the peer review. With no type argument, runs all six internal reviews plus the peer review.

Step 1: Determine the Scope

Determine what to review:

• If a specific diff command was provided (e.g., git diff --cached, git diff origin/main...HEAD), use that.
• If a file list or directory was provided, review those files directly (read the full files, not a diff).
• If neither was provided, default to diffing against the repository's default branch (detect via gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name'). If there are no changes against the default branch, stop and state that there is nothing to review.

State the resolved file list before continuing: add --name-only to a diff command, or list the files for a file or directory scope. When the scope is a staged diff, also state how many further files git diff HEAD --name-only reports, so a scope narrower than intended stays visible before fanning out.

Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel

Each active type maps to a criteria reference file:

• Correctness — references/correctness-review.md
• Security — references/security-review.md
• API usage — references/api-usage-review.md
• Consistency — references/consistency-review.md
• Simplicity — references/simplicity-review.md
• Coverage — references/coverage-review.md

Full review activates all six types; a single-concern argument activates one. Skip peer review when instructed (e.g., "without peer review", "no peer", "internal only").

Before dispatching, read the project's test configuration and CI workflow to identify any test tier that resets a shared external resource between tests, such as a database, a fixed port, or a cache. Such tiers have no cross-process interlock, so branches running them concurrently wipe each other's state and return failures indistinguishable from defects in the change. Name any such tier to every branch as off-limits when the review does not depend on running it. When the change under review is what that tier exists to exercise, so that judging it at all requires running the tier, direct each branch instead to provision its own isolated instance of the resource, prepare it through the project's own setup path, run against it, and tear it down afterward. One shared instance carrying an instruction to run a single branch at a time is not sufficient, since nothing enforces that across branches. When a branch's own instance cannot be provisioned, the tier is left unrun and reported as such.

Direct every branch that runs a test suite to redirect the runner's output to a file under $TMPDIR and read the file. Piping a runner to head, tail, or another command that closes the stream early returns while the runner is still going, so a branch that believes its run finished leaves one live to overlap the next branch's.

When the scope contains a guard whose safety rests on an assumption stated in the conversation, in a plan file, or in a code comment, give every branch that assumption as the claim to refute rather than as background.

When the scope contains content that a build or render transform rewrites before it ships — markup compiled to components, template expansion, code generation, translation extraction — build the project before dispatching, in an isolated git worktree under $TMPDIR when the build writes to tracked files, and name the emitted files as part of the scope every branch receives, so each type judges the emitted artifact rather than the source.

Confine each branch prompt to what to review, plus the conventions and factual properties that bear on it. A statement that tells a branch what verdict to reach about a property of the existing code binds it to accept the very property the review exists to assess.

When a list of already-adjudicated findings was supplied (one line each: the finding, its verdict, and the recorded reason), include it in every branch prompt, internal and peer, labeled as decisions already reached on proposed changes rather than as established properties of the code. Direct each branch to treat a finding as listed when it matches one on both location and substance, to raise such a finding again only on evidence its recorded reason does not already account for, and to judge any other finding at the same location on its own merits.

Run the review branches independently. Launch them with spawn_agent / wait_agent using inherited model defaults, issuing every call in one batch. Do not issue one and await its result before issuing the rest. For full review that is six internal branches plus one peer branch; for single-concern it is one internal branch plus one peer branch. Every branch prompt must direct it to treat the shared working tree and its git index as read-only and to assess findings by reading and reasoning. HEAD stays where it is: read other refs with git show <ref>:<path> rather than git checkout or git switch. For a check that genuinely requires mutating code (such as testing whether a finding holds), the branch works in an isolated git worktree created under $TMPDIR and discarded afterward. Give that worktree its own dependency install rather than reaching the shared tree's install by any route: removing a worktree deletes through symlinks, and a redirected suite writes into the shared install. When its own install is not possible, the check is left unrun and reported as such. Afterward the branch verifies that git worktree list no longer shows the worktree, that git status --short is clean, that HEAD is still on the branch it started on, and that the shared tree's dependency directory still resolves (a destroyed install leaves git status clean, since it is gitignored). Damage the branch cannot repair is reported with the exact repair command in place of findings.

• Internal branch (one per active type): The branch prompt must include the scope, the path to the type's reference file (~/.agents/skills/review-code/references/<type>-review.md), the output format below, and this directive: read that reference file directly, apply its determination criteria as the bar for a real finding, then return every finding that clears that bar tagged with its priority. Coverage is the goal at this stage, so surface everything that qualifies and let the priority tags convey severity. The branch must also return the Overall Verdict block for its type, using the verdict label from the reference file it read.
• Peer review branch (unless skipping): Spawn a Codex sub-agent and instruct it to read and follow $peer-review from the installed skill directory, with a request describing: (a) the scope to review; (b) all active types covered in one single-pass review run that evaluates every dimension, each judged independently against its criteria file, rather than a per-dimension parallel fan-out; (c) for each dimension, the criteria live in ~/.agents/skills/review-code/references/<type>-review.md — the reviewer should read that file directly, use its priority scale and verdict label, and include any extra metadata fields it specifies; (d) the output format below, including the **Failure scenario:** line; (e) the already-adjudicated findings list when one was supplied, framed as described above. The branch prompt must also state explicitly that the sub-agent's final message must contain the verbatim findings text $peer-review produced.

Aggregate the findings and per-type verdicts the branches return, with attribution (reviewer: "internal" or "peer"; type; file path). Present them in the output format below.

Then call update_plan to mark this step completed and continue with the next step of the active workflow.

Output Format

Format each finding as:

### [P<N>] <title (imperative, ≤80 chars)>

**File:** `<file path>` (lines <start>-<end>)
**Reviewer:** <internal | peer> (<type>)
**Failure scenario:** <concrete trigger → the consequence>

<one paragraph explaining the issue and its impact>

For **Failure scenario:**, state the consequence a user or maintainer would observe: an error, wrong output, or data loss; for the non-correctness types, the concrete cost — what breaks on the next change, what is duplicated, what goes untested, which stated rule is violated. An intermediate state ("the cached value goes stale", "the collection keeps growing") stops short of a consequence; carry it through to what that state causes.

The reference file may specify additional metadata fields (e.g., **Category:**, **Library:**, **Docs:**). Include them between the **Reviewer:** line and the **Failure scenario:** line.

After all findings, place the Overall Verdict block each internal branch returned for its type (each uses the verdict label from its reference file). For single-concern, that is one verdict block; for full review, six. After the per-type verdicts, add a single combined ## Peer Review Verdict block summarizing what the peer review returned.

## Overall Verdict — <type>

**<Verdict Label>:** <status>

<1-3 sentence assessment>

If there are no qualifying findings for a type, state so under that type's verdict block and explain briefly.

Rules

• Present findings grouped by priority in single-concern mode, and in file order in full review mode to minimize context switching.