Review

by parcadeid07ff4b06b62No license3.9K starsListed Oct 8, 2026Updated Oct 8, 2026Repository updated 8 months ago

Comprehensive code review workflow - parallel specialized reviews → synthesis

Instructions onlySoftware Development

AI-generated overview

Runs a multi-perspective code review workflow with parallel specialist reviews and a final synthesis verdict.

What it does: This skill defines a code review workflow that dispatches parallel review tasks to specialist agents covering code quality, architecture alignment, and change impact. A synthesis agent then combines the findings into a final verdict of APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, or NEEDS_DISCUSSION, with prioritized blocking and non-blocking action items. It also describes review modes such as full, quick, security-focused, and pull-request review.
When to use it: Use it when asked to review code, a pull request, or an implementation before merging, or when a quality gate is needed. It fits requests for feedback on significant changes and risk assessment.
Requirements: Instructions only; no scripts are included. It assumes an agent environment that supports subagent task dispatch with named agent types (critic, plan-reviewer, review-agent, and optionally aegis) and background task execution.

/review - Code Review Workflow

Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.

When to Use

"Review this code"
"Review my PR"
"Check this before I merge"
"Get feedback on implementation"
Before merging significant changes
Quality gates

Workflow Overview

         ┌──────────┐         │  critic  │ ─┐         │ (code)   │  │         └──────────┘  │                       │         ┌──────────┐  │      ┌──────────────┐         │plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │         │ (plan)   │  │      │ (synthesis)  │         └──────────┘  │      └──────────────┘                       │         ┌──────────┐  │         │plan-reviewer│ ─┘         │ (change) │         └──────────┘
         Parallel                Sequential         perspectives            synthesis

         ┌──────────┐         │  critic  │ ─┐         │ (code)   │  │         └──────────┘  │                       │         ┌──────────┐  │      ┌──────────────┐         │plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │         │ (plan)   │  │      │ (synthesis)  │         └──────────┘  │      └──────────────┘                       │         ┌──────────┐  │         │plan-reviewer│ ─┘         │ (change) │         └──────────┘
         Parallel                Sequential         perspectives            synthesis

Agent Sequence

#	Agent	Focus	Execution
1	critic	Code quality, patterns, readability	Parallel
1	plan-reviewer	Architecture, plan adherence	Parallel
1	plan-reviewer	Change impact, risk assessment	Parallel
2	review-agent	Synthesize all reviews, final verdict	After 1

Review Perspectives

critic: Is this good code? (Style, patterns, readability)
plan-reviewer: Does this match the design? (Architecture, plan)
plan-reviewer: Is this change safe? (Risk, impact, regressions)
review-agent: Overall assessment and recommendations

Execution

Phase 1: Parallel Reviews

# Code quality reviewTask(  subagent_type="critic",  prompt="""  Review code quality: [SCOPE]
  Evaluate:  - Code style and consistency  - Design patterns used  - Readability and maintainability  - Error handling  - Test coverage
  Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)  """,  run_in_background=true)
# Architecture reviewTask(  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",  prompt="""  Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]
  Check:  - Follows established patterns  - Matches implementation plan (if exists)  - Consistent with system design  - No architectural violations
  Output: Alignment assessment with concerns  """,  run_in_background=true)
# Change impact reviewTask(  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",  prompt="""  Review change impact: [SCOPE]
  Assess:  - Risk level of changes  - Affected systems/components  - Backward compatibility  - Potential regressions  - Security implications
  Output: Risk assessment with recommendations  """,  run_in_background=true)
# Wait for all parallel reviews[Check TaskOutput for all three]

# Code quality reviewTask(  subagent_type="critic",  prompt="""  Review code quality: [SCOPE]
  Evaluate:  - Code style and consistency  - Design patterns used  - Readability and maintainability  - Error handling  - Test coverage
  Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)  """,  run_in_background=true)
# Architecture reviewTask(  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",  prompt="""  Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]
  Check:  - Follows established patterns  - Matches implementation plan (if exists)  - Consistent with system design  - No architectural violations
  Output: Alignment assessment with concerns  """,  run_in_background=true)
# Change impact reviewTask(  subagent_type="plan-reviewer",  prompt="""  Review change impact: [SCOPE]
  Assess:  - Risk level of changes  - Affected systems/components  - Backward compatibility  - Potential regressions  - Security implications
  Output: Risk assessment with recommendations  """,  run_in_background=true)
# Wait for all parallel reviews[Check TaskOutput for all three]

Phase 2: Synthesis

Task(  subagent_type="review-agent",  prompt="""  Synthesize reviews for: [SCOPE]
  Reviews:  - critic: [code quality findings]  - plan-reviewer: [architecture findings]  - plan-reviewer: [change impact findings]
  Create final review:  - Overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION)  - Prioritized action items  - Blocking vs non-blocking issues  - Summary for PR description  """)

Task(  subagent_type="review-agent",  prompt="""  Synthesize reviews for: [SCOPE]
  Reviews:  - critic: [code quality findings]  - plan-reviewer: [architecture findings]  - plan-reviewer: [change impact findings]
  Create final review:  - Overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / NEEDS_DISCUSSION)  - Prioritized action items  - Blocking vs non-blocking issues  - Summary for PR description  """)

Review Modes

Full Review

Quick Review

Security Focus

PR Review

Example

User: /review the authentication changes
Claude: Starting /review workflow...
Phase 1: Running parallel reviews...┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐│ critic: Reviewing code quality...          ││ plan-reviewer: Checking architecture...         ││ plan-reviewer: Assessing change impact...         │└────────────────────────────────────────────┘
critic: Found 2 issues- [minor] Inconsistent error messages in auth.ts- [major] Missing input validation in login()
plan-reviewer: ✅ Matches authentication plan
plan-reviewer: Medium risk- Affects: login, signup, password reset- Breaking change: session token format
Phase 2: Synthesizing...
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐│ Review Summary                              │├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤│ Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES                    ││                                             ││ Blocking:                                   ││ 1. Add input validation to login()          ││                                             ││ Non-blocking:                               ││ 2. Standardize error messages               ││                                             ││ Notes:                                      ││ - Document session token format change      ││ - Consider migration path for existing      ││   sessions                                  │└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

User: /review the authentication changes
Claude: Starting /review workflow...
Phase 1: Running parallel reviews...┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐│ critic: Reviewing code quality...          ││ plan-reviewer: Checking architecture...         ││ plan-reviewer: Assessing change impact...         │└────────────────────────────────────────────┘
critic: Found 2 issues- [minor] Inconsistent error messages in auth.ts- [major] Missing input validation in login()
plan-reviewer: ✅ Matches authentication plan
plan-reviewer: Medium risk- Affects: login, signup, password reset- Breaking change: session token format
Phase 2: Synthesizing...
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐│ Review Summary                              │├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤│ Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES                    ││                                             ││ Blocking:                                   ││ 1. Add input validation to login()          ││                                             ││ Non-blocking:                               ││ 2. Standardize error messages               ││                                             ││ Notes:                                      ││ - Document session token format change      ││ - Consider migration path for existing      ││   sessions                                  │└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Verdicts

APPROVE: Ready to merge, all issues are minor
REQUEST_CHANGES: Blocking issues must be fixed
NEEDS_DISCUSSION: Architectural decisions need input

Source and attribution

Source:parcadei/continuous-claude-v3in.claude/skills/reviewat commitd07ff4b

License: No license

Content belongs to its original authors. SourceWeft indexes it from a public repository.

Report or request removal

Review

/review - Code Review Workflow

When to Use

Workflow Overview

Agent Sequence

Review Perspectives

Execution

Phase 1: Parallel Reviews

Phase 2: Synthesis

Review Modes

Full Review

Quick Review

Security Focus

PR Review

Example

Verdicts

Source and attribution

More from parcadei/continuous-claude-v3

Tldr Stats

Wiring

Workflow Router

Validate Agent

Tour

Tldr Overview

More in Software Development

Playground

M5 Onboard

Cardputer Buddy

Web Design Guidelines

Vercel React Native Skills

Vercel React Best Practices