201 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
201 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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
|