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-reviewvia 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.