tobihagemann/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 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.

Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel

Read the reference file(s) for the active type(s):

• 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").

Use the Agent tool to launch all agents below in a single assistant message so they run concurrently. Each Agent call uses model: "opus" and does not set run_in_background. For full review that is seven Agent tool calls (six internal + one peer); for single-concern it is two (one internal + one peer).

• Internal Agent (one per active type): Launch a separate Agent tool call for each active type. Pass the scope and the type's reference file content; the subagent applies the criteria and returns findings in the output format below.
• Peer review Agent (unless skipping): Launch an Agent tool call whose prompt instructs the subagent to invoke /peer-review via the Skill tool with a request describing: (a) the scope to review; (b) each active type as a separate review dimension so they are reviewed independently; (c) for each dimension, the criteria live in ~/.claude/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 (e.g., **Category:**, **Library:**, **Docs:**) between the **Reviewer:** line and the paragraph.

Aggregate findings with attribution (reviewer: "internal" or "peer"; type; file path). Present them in the output format below.

Then use the TaskList tool and proceed to any remaining task.

Output Format

Return findings as a numbered list. For each finding:

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

**File:** `<file path>` (lines <start>-<end>)
**Reviewer:** <internal | peer> (<type>)

<one paragraph explaining the issue and its impact>

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

After all findings, add an overall verdict per active type using the label from each 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 full code review mode, present findings in file order to minimize context switching.