version: "1.0.1" name: review-code description: "Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to \"review my code\", \"full code review\", \"review my changes\", \"check for bugs\", \"scan for bugs\", \"review correctness\", \"security audit\", \"find vulnerabilities\", \"review security\", \"check API usage\", \"verify against docs\", \"check for cross-file duplication\", \"review consistency\", \"check for code reuse\", \"review simplicity\", \"find untested code\", or \"review test coverage\"."

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

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").

Run the review branches independently. Launch them with spawn_agent / wait_agent using inherited model defaults. 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. For a check that genuinely requires mutating code (such as testing whether a finding holds), the branch works in an isolated git worktree it discards afterward.

• 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): Run the $peer-review skill 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 ~/.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 (e.g., **Category:**, **Library:**, **Docs:**) between the **Reviewer:** line and the paragraph. 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 update or check the active plan 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, 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 full code review mode, present findings in file order to minimize context switching.