vibeeval/vibecosystem/review

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

# Code quality review
Task(
  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 review
Task(
  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 review
Task(
  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]

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
  """
)

User: /review
→ All four agents, comprehensive review

User: /review --quick
→ critic only, fast feedback

User: /review --security
→ Add aegis (security agent) to parallel phase

User: /review PR #123
→ Fetch PR diff, review changes

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                                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘