Initial commit

commands/code-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+description: Comprehensive code review based on requirements
+argument-hint: Review requirements and scope
+---
+
+# Code Review
+
+You are orchestrating a focused code review based on requirements and scope. Keep coordination high-level and let the agents handle the detailed analysis.
+
+## Initial Request
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+## Workflow
+
+Use TodoWrite to track the workflow.
+
+### 1. Determine Review Scope
+
+Identify what needs to be reviewed:
+
+- If the specific file paths are provided, review the specified files
+- If the specific changes are provided, review the specified changes
+- If the specific PR is provided, review the specified PR
+- If no arguments provided, review the recent changes by using git status and git diff
+
+### 2. Clarify Requirements
+
+Clarify the review scope and criteria by asking the user with the **AskUserQuestion** tool before launching any agents.
+
+- What specific aspects to focus on? (code quality, architecture patterns, feature completeness, etc.)
+- Any particular concerns or requirements?
+
+### 3. (Optional) Launch PR Analyzer
+
+**Only if the specific PR is provided:**
+
+Launch the **pr-analyzer** agent to analyze the PR with clear review requirements and scope. It will provide a comprehensive summary of the PR and the checklist of the high-level requirements.
+
+### 4. Launch Code Reviewer
+
+Launch the **code-reviewer** agent to perform the review:
+- Provide the review requirements and scope
+- Let the agent autonomously analyze and provide feedback
+
+The agent will provide a comprehensive code review to meet the review requirements and scope.
+
+### 5. Present the review summary
+
+Once the **code-reviewer** agent completes, pass the review summary to the user without any additional formatting.
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- **Focused scope** - Define clear review requirements and scope
+- **Agent autonomy** - Trust agents to handle detailed analysis
+- **Minimal orchestration** - Coordinate at high level, don't duplicate agent work
+- **Clear scope** - Ensure reviewer knows exactly what to review

commands/quick-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+description: Quick code quality check focusing on critical and major issues
+argument-hint: File paths or leave empty for recent changes
+---
+
+# Quick Review
+
+You are performing a fast, focused code review in the main conversation. Identify critical and major issues only - skip minor improvements and style suggestions.
+
+## Initial Request
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+## Workflow
+
+Use TodoWrite to track the workflow.
+
+### 1. Determine Review Scope
+
+Identify what needs to be reviewed:
+
+- If the specific file paths are provided, review the specified files
+- If the specific changes are provided, review the specified changes
+- If no arguments provided, review the recent changes by using git status and git diff
+
+### 2. Clarify Requirements
+
+Clarify the review scope and criteria by asking the user with the **AskUserQuestion** tool before launching any agents.
+
+- What specific aspects to focus on? (code quality, architecture patterns, feature completeness, etc.)
+- Any particular concerns or requirements?
+
+### 3. Context Gathering
+
+Gather only essential context directly without launching any agents:
+
+- Identify programming language(s) and framework(s)
+- Understand the project architecture and patterns
+- Review existing code conventions and style guides
+- Test coverage and its impact
+
+### 4. Focused Analysis
+
+Review for **critical and major issues only**:
+
+**Critical Issues** (must fix):
+- Security flaws (injection, XSS, auth, secrets)
+- Logic errors causing failure, data loss, or corruption
+- Memory/resource leaks
+- Concurrency bugs (race, deadlock)
+- Breaking changes to public APIs
+- Major violations of clean code or architecture that prevent maintainability
+
+**Major Concerns** (should fix):
+- Poor error handling that hides bugs
+- Significant performance problems
+- Architectural/code quality issues harming modularity or clarity
+- Missing input validation on key paths
+- Improper resource management
+
+### 5. Present Findings
+
+Provide concise, actionable feedback using this format:
+
+```markdown
+## Summary
+[1-2 sentence overview of findings]
+
+## Critical Issues
+[Issues that MUST be addressed]
+- [Issue description] at file.ext:line
+  - Impact: [Concrete risk]
+  - Recommendation: [Specific fix]
+
+## Major Concerns
+[Issues that SHOULD be addressed]
+- [Issue description] at file.ext:line
+  - Concern: [What could go wrong]
+  - Suggestion: [Alternative approach]
+
+## Recommended Actions
+[Priority-ordered next steps]
+```
+
+**If no critical/major issues found**, state clearly that the code looks clean.
+
+## Important Guidelines
+
+- **Speed over completeness** - This is a quick scan, not exhaustive
+- **High signal, low noise** - Only report issues that truly matter
+- **Be specific** - Always include file:line references
+- **No minor items** - Skip style, formatting, optional improvements
+- **Limit findings** - Max 3-5 issues per category
+- **Be constructive** - Explain why each issue matters and how to fix it