Initial commit

commands/codereview.md

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+---
+name: codereview
+description: Run comprehensive parallel code review with all 3 specialized reviewers
+argument-hint: "[files-or-paths]"
+---
+
+Dispatch all 3 specialized code reviewers in parallel, collect their reports, and provide a consolidated analysis.
+
+## Review Process
+
+### Step 1: Dispatch All Three Reviewers in Parallel
+
+**CRITICAL: Use a single message with 3 Task tool calls to launch all reviewers simultaneously.**
+
+Gather the required context first:
+- WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Summary of changes made
+- PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Original plan or requirements (if available)
+- BASE_SHA: Base commit for comparison (if applicable)
+- HEAD_SHA: Head commit for comparison (if applicable)
+- DESCRIPTION: Additional context about the changes
+
+Then dispatch all 3 reviewers:
+
+```
+Task tool #1 (ring-default:code-reviewer):
+  model: "opus"
+  description: "Review code quality and architecture"
+  prompt: |
+    WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: [summary of changes]
+    PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: [original plan/requirements]
+    BASE_SHA: [base commit if applicable]
+    HEAD_SHA: [head commit if applicable]
+    DESCRIPTION: [additional context]
+
+Task tool #2 (ring-default:business-logic-reviewer):
+  model: "opus"
+  description: "Review business logic correctness"
+  prompt: |
+    [Same parameters as above]
+
+Task tool #3 (ring-default:security-reviewer):
+  model: "opus"
+  description: "Review security vulnerabilities"
+  prompt: |
+    [Same parameters as above]
+```
+
+**Wait for all three reviewers to complete their work.**
+
+### Step 2: Collect and Aggregate Reports
+
+Each reviewer returns:
+- **Verdict:** PASS/FAIL/NEEDS_DISCUSSION
+- **Strengths:** What was done well
+- **Issues:** Categorized by severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low/Cosmetic)
+- **Recommendations:** Specific actionable feedback
+
+Consolidate all issues by severity across all three reviewers.
+
+### Step 3: Provide Consolidated Report
+
+Return a consolidated report in this format:
+
+```markdown
+# Full Review Report
+
+## VERDICT: [PASS | FAIL | NEEDS_DISCUSSION]
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+[2-3 sentences about overall review across all gates]
+
+**Total Issues:**
+- Critical: [N across all gates]
+- High: [N across all gates]
+- Medium: [N across all gates]
+- Low: [N across all gates]
+
+---
+
+## Code Quality Review (Foundation)
+
+**Verdict:** [PASS | FAIL]
+**Issues:** Critical [N], High [N], Medium [N], Low [N]
+
+### Critical Issues
+[List all critical code quality issues]
+
+### High Issues
+[List all high code quality issues]
+
+[Medium/Low issues summary]
+
+---
+
+## Business Logic Review (Correctness)
+
+**Verdict:** [PASS | FAIL]
+**Issues:** Critical [N], High [N], Medium [N], Low [N]
+
+### Critical Issues
+[List all critical business logic issues]
+
+### High Issues
+[List all high business logic issues]
+
+[Medium/Low issues summary]
+
+---
+
+## Security Review (Safety)
+
+**Verdict:** [PASS | FAIL]
+**Issues:** Critical [N], High [N], Medium [N], Low [N]
+
+### Critical Vulnerabilities
+[List all critical security vulnerabilities]
+
+### High Vulnerabilities
+[List all high security vulnerabilities]
+
+[Medium/Low vulnerabilities summary]
+
+---
+
+## Consolidated Action Items
+
+**MUST FIX (Critical):**
+1. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`
+2. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`
+
+**SHOULD FIX (High):**
+1. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`
+2. [Issue from any gate] - `file:line`
+
+**CONSIDER (Medium/Low):**
+[Brief list]
+
+---
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**If PASS:**
+- ✅ All 3 reviewers passed
+- ✅ Ready for next step (merge/production)
+
+**If FAIL:**
+- ❌ Fix all Critical/High/Medium issues immediately
+- ❌ Add TODO(review) comments for Low issues in code
+- ❌ Add FIXME(nitpick) comments for Cosmetic/Nitpick issues in code
+- ❌ Re-run all 3 reviewers in parallel after fixes
+
+**If NEEDS_DISCUSSION:**
+- 💬 [Specific discussion points across gates]
+```
+
+## Severity-Based Action Guide
+
+After producing the consolidated report, provide clear guidance:
+
+**Critical/High/Medium Issues:**
+```
+These issues MUST be fixed immediately:
+1. [Issue description] - file.ext:line - [Reviewer]
+2. [Issue description] - file.ext:line - [Reviewer]
+
+Recommended approach:
+- Dispatch fix subagent to address all Critical/High/Medium issues
+- After fixes complete, re-run all 3 reviewers in parallel to verify
+```
+
+**Low Issues:**
+```
+Add TODO comments in the code for these issues:
+
+// TODO(review): [Issue description]
+// Reported by: [reviewer-name] on [date]
+// Severity: Low
+// Location: file.ext:line
+```
+
+**Cosmetic/Nitpick Issues:**
+```
+Add FIXME comments in the code for these issues:
+
+// FIXME(nitpick): [Issue description]
+// Reported by: [reviewer-name] on [date]
+// Severity: Cosmetic
+// Location: file.ext:line
+```
+
+## Remember
+
+1. **All reviewers are independent** - They run in parallel, not sequentially
+2. **Dispatch all 3 reviewers in parallel** - Single message, 3 Task calls
+3. **Specify model: "opus"** - All reviewers need opus for comprehensive analysis
+4. **Wait for all to complete** - Don't aggregate until all reports received
+5. **Consolidate findings by severity** - Group all issues across reviewers
+6. **Provide clear action guidance** - Tell user exactly what to fix vs. document
+7. **Overall FAIL if any reviewer fails** - One failure means work needs fixes