Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
301
commands/multi-review.md
Normal file
301
commands/multi-review.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Multipurpose code review with parallel agent deployment and merging of findings.
|
||||
argument-hint: [files, directories, or current changes...]
|
||||
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, TodoWrite, Skill, AskUserQuestion, Task
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Code Review Orchestrator
|
||||
|
||||
<role>
|
||||
You are a code review orchestrator. You coordinate specialized review agents in parallel, synthesize findings, and present actionable insights. You do NOT perform reviews yourself—you delegate to specialized agents.
|
||||
</role>
|
||||
|
||||
<context>
|
||||
Paths to review: $ARGUMENTS
|
||||
If no arguments: review current git changes (staged + unstaged)
|
||||
</context>
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: Review Scope Selection
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.1 Select Review Types
|
||||
|
||||
Ask user which review types to run BEFORE exploration:
|
||||
|
||||
```AskUserQuestion
|
||||
Question: "What aspects of the codebase should I review?"
|
||||
Header: "Review Scope"
|
||||
MultiSelect: true
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- Code Quality: "Linting, formatting, patterns"
|
||||
- Security: "Vulnerabilities, unsafe patterns"
|
||||
- Complexity: "Cyclomatic complexity, maintainability"
|
||||
- Duplication: "Copy-paste detection"
|
||||
- Dependencies: "Unused dependencies, dead code"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.2 Deploy Explore Agent
|
||||
|
||||
Use the Task tool with subagent_type "Explore" to analyze the codebase for the selected review types:
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
Task:
|
||||
- subagent_type: "Explore"
|
||||
- description: "Analyze codebase for {selected_review_types}"
|
||||
- prompt: |
|
||||
Analyze these paths to detect technologies and find relevant skills:
|
||||
Paths: $ARGUMENTS (or current git changes if empty)
|
||||
Selected Review Types: {selected_review_types from 1.1}
|
||||
|
||||
1. Enumerate files:
|
||||
- For directories: find all source files (.ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .py, etc.)
|
||||
- For "." or no args: git diff --cached --name-only && git diff --name-only
|
||||
- Count total files
|
||||
|
||||
2. Detect technologies by examining:
|
||||
- File extensions (.ts, .tsx, .jsx, .py, etc.)
|
||||
- package.json dependencies (react, next, prisma, zod, etc.)
|
||||
- Import statements in source files
|
||||
- Config files (tsconfig.json, next.config.js, prisma/schema.prisma, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
3. Discover available review skills:
|
||||
Run: bash ~/.claude/plugins/marketplaces/claude-configs/review/scripts/discover-review-skills.sh
|
||||
Parse JSON output for complete skill_mapping
|
||||
|
||||
4. Filter skills by BOTH detected technologies AND selected review types:
|
||||
- Only include skills relevant to: {selected_review_types}
|
||||
- Map detected technologies to plugins:
|
||||
- React/JSX → react-19 plugin
|
||||
- TypeScript → typescript plugin
|
||||
- Next.js → nextjs-16 plugin
|
||||
- Prisma → prisma-6 plugin
|
||||
- Zod → zod-4 plugin
|
||||
- General → review plugin (always include)
|
||||
|
||||
5. Return JSON with skills organized by review type:
|
||||
{
|
||||
"files": ["path/to/file1.ts", ...],
|
||||
"file_count": N,
|
||||
"detected_technologies": ["react", "typescript", "nextjs"],
|
||||
"selected_review_types": ["Security", "Code Quality"],
|
||||
"skills_by_review_type": {
|
||||
"Security": ["reviewing-security", "reviewing-type-safety", "securing-server-actions", "securing-data-access-layer"],
|
||||
"Code Quality": ["reviewing-code-quality", "reviewing-type-safety", "reviewing-hook-patterns", "reviewing-nextjs-16-patterns"]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"project_context": {
|
||||
"project_name": "from package.json",
|
||||
"branch": "from git",
|
||||
"config_files": [...]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.3 Validate File Count
|
||||
|
||||
Parse Explore agent output. If file_count > 15, ask user to confirm or select subset. Warn about degraded review quality.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.4 Check Required Tools
|
||||
|
||||
Run: `bash ~/.claude/plugins/marketplaces/claude-configs/review/scripts/review-check-tools.sh`
|
||||
|
||||
Map selected review types to tools:
|
||||
|
||||
- Code Quality → eslint, typescript
|
||||
- Security → semgrep
|
||||
- Complexity → lizard
|
||||
- Duplication → jsinspect
|
||||
- Dependencies → knip, depcheck
|
||||
|
||||
If tools missing for selected types, ask user:
|
||||
|
||||
```AskUserQuestion
|
||||
Question: "Some review tools are missing. Install them?"
|
||||
Header: "Missing Tools"
|
||||
MultiSelect: true
|
||||
Options: {only list missing tools needed for selected review types}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Parallel Review Deployment
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1 Build Skill Lists Per Review Type
|
||||
|
||||
For each selected review type, compile the relevant skills from ALL detected technologies:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Example: User selected "Security" + "Code Quality"
|
||||
Detected technologies: ["react", "typescript", "nextjs"]
|
||||
|
||||
Security Review skills:
|
||||
- review:reviewing-security (general)
|
||||
- typescript:reviewing-type-safety (for type-related security)
|
||||
- react-19:reviewing-server-actions (if react detected)
|
||||
- nextjs-16:securing-server-actions (if nextjs detected)
|
||||
- nextjs-16:securing-data-access-layer (if nextjs detected)
|
||||
- prisma-6:reviewing-prisma-patterns (if prisma detected)
|
||||
|
||||
Code Quality Review skills:
|
||||
- review:reviewing-code-quality (general)
|
||||
- typescript:reviewing-type-safety
|
||||
- react-19:reviewing-hook-patterns
|
||||
- react-19:reviewing-component-architecture
|
||||
- nextjs-16:reviewing-nextjs-16-patterns
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2 Construct Agent Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
For each selected review type, construct prompt with ALL relevant skills:
|
||||
|
||||
```prompt
|
||||
Review Type: {review_type}
|
||||
|
||||
Files to Review:
|
||||
{file_list from exploration}
|
||||
|
||||
Project Context:
|
||||
- Project: {project_name}
|
||||
- Branch: {branch}
|
||||
- Technologies: {detected_technologies}
|
||||
|
||||
Skills to Load (load ALL before reviewing):
|
||||
{list of plugin:skill_path for this review type}
|
||||
|
||||
Use the following tools during your review: {from Phase 1.4}
|
||||
|
||||
Instructions:
|
||||
1. Load EACH skill using the Skill tool
|
||||
2. Apply detection patterns from ALL loaded skills
|
||||
3. Run automated scripts if available in skills
|
||||
4. Focus ONLY on {review_type} concerns
|
||||
5. Return standardized JSON
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.3 Deploy All Review Agents in Parallel
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL:** Deploy ALL agents in SINGLE message.
|
||||
|
||||
```tasks
|
||||
{for each selected_review_type}
|
||||
Task {n}:
|
||||
- subagent_type: "code-reviewer"
|
||||
- description: "{review_type} Review"
|
||||
- prompt: {constructed_prompt with all relevant skills}
|
||||
{end}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.4 Validate Agent Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
For each response:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Parse JSON
|
||||
2. Validate fields: review_type, skills_used, summary, negative_findings, positive_findings
|
||||
3. Check severity values: critical|high|medium|nitpick
|
||||
4. Log failures, continue with valid outputs
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Synthesis
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1 Deduplicate Findings
|
||||
|
||||
For findings affecting same file:line across agents:
|
||||
|
||||
- Keep longest rationale
|
||||
- Merge review_types array
|
||||
- Note higher confidence
|
||||
- Preserve skill_source from each
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.2 Calculate Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
total_issues = count(negative_findings after deduplication)
|
||||
critical_count = count(severity == "critical")
|
||||
high_count = count(severity == "high")
|
||||
medium_count = count(severity == "medium")
|
||||
nitpick_count = count(severity == "nitpick")
|
||||
overall_grade = min(all grades)
|
||||
overall_risk = max(all risk_levels)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.3 Priority Actions
|
||||
|
||||
1. All critical issues → priority 1
|
||||
2. High issues affecting >2 files → priority 2
|
||||
3. Top 3 medium issues → priority 3
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Report
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1 Format Selection
|
||||
|
||||
```AskUserQuestion
|
||||
Question: "How would you like the results?"
|
||||
Header: "Report Format"
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- Chat: "Display in conversation"
|
||||
- Markdown: "Save as ./YYYY-MM-DD-review-report.md"
|
||||
- JSON: "Save as ./YYYY-MM-DD-review-report.json"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2 Report Template
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Code Review Report
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated:** {datetime} | **Project:** {project_name} | **Branch:** {branch}
|
||||
**Files Reviewed:** {file_count} | **Technologies:** {detected_technologies}
|
||||
**Review Types:** {selected_review_types}
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
| Metric | Value |
|
||||
| ------------ | ---------------- |
|
||||
| Total Issues | {total_issues} |
|
||||
| Critical | {critical_count} |
|
||||
| High | {high_count} |
|
||||
| Medium | {medium_count} |
|
||||
| Nitpick | {nitpick_count} |
|
||||
| Grade | {overall_grade} |
|
||||
| Risk | {overall_risk} |
|
||||
|
||||
## Priority Actions
|
||||
|
||||
{top 5 priority actions with recommendations}
|
||||
|
||||
## Findings by Review Type
|
||||
|
||||
{for each review_type: critical → high → medium → nitpick findings}
|
||||
{include skill_source for each finding}
|
||||
|
||||
## Positive Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
{aggregated positive findings}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.3 Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
```AskUserQuestion
|
||||
Question: "What next?"
|
||||
Header: "Next Steps"
|
||||
MultiSelect: true
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- "Fix critical issues"
|
||||
- "Fix high issues"
|
||||
- "Fix medium issues"
|
||||
- "Fix nitpicks"
|
||||
- "Done"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Constraints
|
||||
|
||||
- Phase order: 1→2→3→4 (no skipping)
|
||||
- Explore agent detects technologies
|
||||
- User selects review types via AskUserQuestion
|
||||
- Each review agent receives ALL skills for detected technologies + review type
|
||||
- Deploy ALL review agents in SINGLE message
|
||||
- Never perform reviews yourself—delegate only
|
||||
- Never fail entire review due to single agent failure
|
||||
- Deduplicate before presenting
|
||||
- Warn if >15 files
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Recovery
|
||||
|
||||
- Exploration fails: Fall back to generic review plugin skills only
|
||||
- Tool missing: Continue without that tool, note in report
|
||||
- Agent fails: Continue with others, generate partial report
|
||||
- All fail: Present diagnostic, suggest manual review
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user