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.